1 FRANK H. KIM, State Bar No.

264609
fkim@kim-legal.com
2 KIM LEGAL, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2700
3 Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (323) 482-3300
4 Facsimile: (866) 652-7819
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff DANIEL FERGUSON
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

9
10 DANIEL FERGUSON, individually and on Case No.:
behalf of other persons similarly situated,
11 CLASS ACTION
Plaintiff,
12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
vs.
13
APPLE VIDEO PROGRAMMING, LLC, a (1) Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight
14 foreign limited liability company; APPLE Time Wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204,
STUDIOS, LLC, a foreign limited liability 1194, 1194.2, and 1197);
15 company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Cal.
Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1198);
16 Defendants.
(3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods (Cal.
17 Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512);
(4) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest
18 Periods (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7);
(5) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at
19 Termination (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-
20 203);
(6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
21 Wage Statements (Cal. Lab. Code §
226);
22 (7) Failure to Indemnify Employees for
Expenditures (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802);
23
and
24 (8) Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.).
25
Request for Jury Trial
26
27
28

1
COMPLAINT
 1 Plaintiff Daniel Ferguson (“Plaintiff”), based upon facts that either have evidentiary
2 support or are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
3 investigation and discovery, alleges as follows:
4 INTRODUCTION
5 1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Apple Video Programming, LLC,
6 Apple Studios, LLC and DOES 1 through 50 (hereinafter collectively referred to as
7 “Defendants”) for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from
8 Defendants’ failure to pay for all hours worked (minimum, straight time, and overtime wages),
9 failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay
10 final wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to indemnify employees for
11 expenditures.
12 2. Plaintiff brings the First through Eighth Causes of Action individually and as a
13 class action on behalf of herself and certain current and former employees of Defendants
14 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Class” or “Class Members,” and defined more fully
15 below). The Class consists of Plaintiff and all other persons who have been employed by any
16 Defendant in California as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee during the statute of
17 limitations period applicable to the claims pleaded here.
18 3. Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and
19 establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County. As such and based
20 upon all the facts and circumstances incident to Defendants’ business in California, Defendants
21 are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
22 Commission (“IWC”), and the California Business & Professions Code.
23 4. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period, Defendants
24 maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of:
25 (a) Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum, straight
26 time, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and
27 IWC Wage Orders;
28 (b) Failing to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods in

2
COMPLAINT
 1 compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to
2 maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing to
3 pay an additional hour’s pay for each workday a meal period violation
4 occurred;
5 (c) Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest
6 periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders,
7 and failing to pay an additional hour’s pay for each workday a rest period
8 violation occurred;
9 (d) Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum, straight time, overtime, meal
10 period premium, and rest period premium wages due within the time period
11 specified by California law when employment terminates;
12 (e) Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements
13 containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC
14 Wage Orders; and,
15 (f) Failing to indemnify employees for expenditures incurred in direct discharge
16 of duties of employment;
17 5. On information and belief, Defendants, and each of them were on actual and
18 constructive notice of the improprieties alleged herein and intentionally refused to rectify their
19 unlawful policies. Defendants’ violations, as alleged above, during all relevant times herein were
20 willful and deliberate.
21 6. At all relevant times, Defendants were and are legally responsible for all of the
22 unlawful conduct, policies, practices, acts and omissions as described in each and all of the
23 foregoing paragraphs as the employer of Plaintiff and the Class. Further, Defendants are
24 responsible for each of the unlawful acts or omissions complained of herein under the doctrine
25 of “respondeat superior.”
26 THE PARTIES
27 7. Plaintiff Daniel Ferguson is a resident of Los Angeles County, California who
28 worked for Defendants in Los Angeles County, California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt

3
COMPLAINT
 1 employee.
2 8. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek leave to amend this complaint to add new
3 Plaintiffs, if necessary, in order to establish suitable representative(s) pursuant to La Sala v.
4 American Savings and Loan Association (1971) 5 Cal.3d 864, 872, and other applicable law.
5 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief
6 alleges, that Defendant Apple Studios, LLC is, and at all times herein mentioned, was:
7 (a) A business entity qualified to do business and actually conducting business
8 in numerous counties throughout the State of California, including in Los
9 Angeles County; and,
10 (b) The former employer of Plaintiff and the current and/or former employer of
11 the putative Class because Defendant Apple Studios, LLC suffered and
12 permitted Plaintiff and the Class to work, and/or controlled their wages,
13 hours, or working conditions.
14 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon that information and belief
15 alleges, that Defendant Apple Video Programming, LLC is, and at all times herein mentioned,
16 was:
17 (a) A business entity qualified to do business and actually conducting business
18 in numerous counties throughout the State of California, including in Los
19 Angeles County; and,
20 (b) The former employer of Plaintiff and the current and/or former employer of
21 the putative Class because Defendant Apple Video Programming, LLC
22 suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the Class to work, and/or controlled
23 their wages, hours, or working conditions.
24 11. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the persons or entities sued
25 herein as Does 1-50, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Each
26 of the Doe Defendants was in some manner legally responsible for the damages suffered by
27 Plaintiff and the Class as alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to set forth the true
28 names and capacities of these Defendants when they have been ascertained, together with

4
COMPLAINT
 1 appropriate charging allegations, as may be necessary.
2 12. At all times mentioned herein, the Defendants named as Does 1-50, inclusive, and
3 each of them, were residents of, doing business in, availed themselves of the jurisdiction of,
4 and/or injured a significant number of the Plaintiff and the Class in the State of California.
5 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times
6 each Defendant, directly or indirectly, or through agents or other persons, employed Plaintiff and
7 the other employees described in the class definitions below, and exercised control over their
8 wages, hours, and working conditions. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
9 that, at all relevant times, each Defendant was the principal, agent, partner, joint venturer, officer,
10 director, controlling shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in interest
11 and/or predecessor in interest of some or all of the other Defendants, and was engaged with some
12 or all of the other Defendants in a joint enterprise for profit, and bore such other relationships to
13 some or all of the other Defendants so as to be liable for their conduct with respect to the matters
14 alleged below. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant acted
15 pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, that each Defendant knew or
16 should have known about, and authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, controlled, aided and
17 abetted the conduct of all other Defendants.
18 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
19 14. From about August 2022 to November 2022, Plaintiff worked for Defendants in
20 Los Angeles County, California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee for the television show,
21 “D’ellacorte” aka “Palm Royale.” During Plaintiff’s employment for Defendants, Defendants
22 paid Plaintiff an hourly wage and classified him as non-exempt from overtime.
23 15. Plaintiff earned and was paid an additional $14 for performing work that involved
24 smoke (referred to on his wage statement or voucher as “SMOKE WORK”). The $14 payment
25 was non-discretionary because it was not paid at Defendants’ sole discretion, and, as such, was
26 required to be factored into the calculation of Plaintiff’s regular rate of pay for the payment of
27 his overtime and double time wages and into the calculation of Plaintiff’s regular rate of
28 compensation for the payment of his meal period premium.

5
COMPLAINT
 1 16. Despite Defendants’ payment of the non-discretionary “SMOKE WORK”
2 payment to Plaintiff, and other similarly situated hourly employees, Defendants failed to include
3 the payment when calculating Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated persons’ regular rate of pay,
4 thereby causing them to be underpaid all of their required overtime and double time wages.
5 Instead, Defendant paid Plaintiff one and one-half times his base rate, which was not equal to
6 one and one-half times the applicable regular rate.
7 17. On information and belief, during the relevant period, Defendants have failed to
8 factor other forms of non-discretionary bonuses into the regular rates of pay for the payment of
9 overtime and double time wages to persons employed as background talent.
10 18. Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and other members of the Class one hour
11 of pay for violations of the meal and rest period requirements, including in periods when the
12 employee earned non-discretionary bonuses required to be factored into an employee’s regular
13 rate of compensation.
14 19. On information and belief, during the relevant period, Defendants have failed to
15 factor other forms of non-discretionary bonuses into the regular rates of compensation for the
16 payment of premium wages to persons employed as background talent.
17 20. In addition, throughout Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants failed to pay for all
18 hours worked (including minimum, straight time, and overtime wages), failed to provide Plaintiff
19 with legally compliant meal periods, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take rest periods,
20 failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiff when Defendants terminated her employment,
21 failed to furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiff, and failed to indemnify Plaintiff for
22 expenditures. As discussed below, Plaintiff’s experience working for Defendants was typical
23 and illustrative.
24 21. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
25 not paying Plaintiff and the Class for all hours worked, including minimum, straight time, and
26 overtime wages. Defendants required Plaintiff and the Class to work “off-the-clock”,
27 uncompensated, by, for example, requiring Plaintiff and the Class to continue working during
28 unpaid meal periods and by requiring Plaintiff and the Class to work before clocking in and after

6
COMPLAINT
 1 clocking out for the workday. Some of this unpaid work should have been paid at the overtime
2 rate. In failing to pay for all hours worked, Defendants also failed to maintain accurate records
3 of the hours Plaintiff and the Class worked.
4 22. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants wrongfully failed to provide Plaintiff
5 and the Class with legally compliant meal periods. Defendants regularly, but not always, required
6 Plaintiff and the Class to work in excess of five or fix consecutive hours a day without providing
7 a 30-minute, uninterrupted, and duty-free meal period for every five hours of work, or without
8 compensating Plaintiff and the Class for meal periods that were not provided by the end of the
9 fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. Instead, Defendants continued to assert control over
10 Plaintiff and the Class by requiring, pressuring, or encouraging them to perform work tasks which
11 could not be completed without working in lieu of taking mandatory meal periods, or by denying
12 Plaintiff and the Class permission to take a meal period. Accordingly, Defendants’ policy and
13 practice was not to provide meal periods to Plaintiff and the Class in compliance with California
14 law.
15 23. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants have wrongfully failed to authorize
16 and permit Plaintiff and the Class to take legally compliant rest periods. Defendants regularly
17 required Plaintiff and the Class to work in excess of four consecutive hours a day without
18 Defendants authorizing and permitting them to take a 10-minute, uninterrupted, duty-free rest
19 period for every four hours of work (or major fraction of four hours), or without compensating
20 Plaintiff and the Class for rest periods that were not authorized or permitted. Instead, Defendants
21 continued to assert control over Plaintiff and the Class by requiring, pressuring, or encouraging
22 them to perform work tasks which could not be completed without working in lieu of taking
23 mandatory rest periods, or by denying Plaintiff and the Class permission to take a rest period.
24 Accordingly, Defendants’ policy and practice was to not authorize and permit Plaintiff and the
25 Class to take rest periods in compliance with California law.
26 24. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants willfully failed and refused to timely
27 pay Plaintiff and the Class all final wages due at their termination of employment. In addition,
28 Plaintiff’s final paychecks did not include payment for all expenditures, minimum wages,

7
COMPLAINT
 1 straight time wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium
2 wages owed to her by Defendants at the conclusion of her employment. On information and
3 belief, Defendants’ failure to timely pay Plaintiff’s final wages when her employment terminated
4 was not a single, isolated incident, but was instead consistent with Defendants’ policy and
5 practice that applied to Plaintiff and the Class.
6 25. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff and the
7 Class with accurate, itemized wage statements showing all applicable hourly rates, all overtime
8 hourly rates, and all gross and net wages earned (including correct hours worked, correct wages
9 for meal periods that were not provided in accordance with California law, and correct wages for
10 rest periods that were not authorized and permitted to take in accordance with California law).
11 As a result of these violations of California Labor Code § 226(a), the Plaintiff and the Class
12 suffered injury because, among other things:
13 (a) the violations led them to believe that they were not entitled to be paid
14 minimum, straight time, overtime, meal period premium, and rest period
15 premium wages, even though they were entitled;
16 (b) the violations led them to believe that they had been paid the minimum,
17 straight time, overtime, meal period premium, and rest period premium
18 wages, even though they had not been;
19 (c) the violations led them to believe they were not entitled to be paid minimum,
20 straight time, overtime, meal period premium, and rest period premium
21 wages at the correct California rate even though they were entitled;
22 (d) the violations led them to believe they had been paid minimum, straight
23 time, overtime, meal period premium, and rest period premium wages at the
24 correct California rate even though they had not been;
25 (e) the violations hindered them from determining the amounts of minimum,
26 straight time, overtime, meal period premium, and rest period premium
27 wages owed to them;
28 (f) in connection with their employment before and during this action, and in

8
COMPLAINT
 1 connection with prosecuting this action, the violations caused them to have
2 to perform mathematical computations to determine the amounts of wages
3 owed to them, computations they would not have to make if the wage
4 statements contained the required accurate information;
5 (g) by understating the wages truly due to them, the violations caused them to
6 lose entitlement and/or accrual of the full amount of Social Security,
7 disability, unemployment, and other governmental benefits;
8 (h) the wage statements inaccurately understated the wages, hours, and wage
9 rates to which Plaintiff and the Class were entitled, and Plaintiff and the
10 Class were paid less than the wages and wage rates to which they were
11 entitled.
12 Thus, Plaintiff and the Class are owed the amounts provided for in California Labor Code
13 § 226(e) and injunctive relief under California Labor Code § 226(h).
14 26. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants have wrongfully required Plaintiff
15 and the Class to pay expenses that they incurred in direct discharge of their duties for Defendants.
16 Plaintiff and the Class regularly paid out-of-pocket for necessary employment-related expenses,
17 including, without limitation, cell phone expenses.
18 27. Plaintiff and the Class incurred substantial expenses as a direct result of
19 performing their job duties for Defendants, but Defendants failed to indemnify Plaintiff and the
20 Class for these employment-related expenses.
21 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
22 28. Plaintiff brings certain claims individually, as well as on behalf of each and all
23 other persons similarly situated, and thus, seeks class certification under California Code of Civil
24 Procedure § 382.
25 29. All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which Plaintiff seeks
26 relief authorized by California law.
27 30. The proposed Class consists of and is defined as:
28 All persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly-paid or non-exempt

9
COMPLAINT
 1 employee at any time during the period beginning four years and 178 days before the
2 filing of the initial complaint in this action and ending when notice to the Class is sent.
3 31. At all material times, Plaintiff was a member of the Class.
4 32. Plaintiff undertook this concerted activity to improve the wages and working
5 conditions of all Class Members.
6 33. There is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the Class is
7 readily ascertainable:
8 (a) Numerosity: The members of the Class (and each subclass, if any) are so
9 numerous that joinder of all members would be unfeasible and impractical. The
10 membership of the entire Class is unknown to Plaintiff at this time; however, the
11 Class is estimated to be greater than one hundred (100) individuals and the
12 identity of such membership is readily ascertainable by inspection of Defendants’
13 records.
14 (b) Typicality: Plaintiff is qualified to, and will, fairly and adequately protect the
15 interests of each Class Member with whom there is a shared, well-defined
16 community of interest, and Plaintiff’s claims (or defenses, if any) are typical of
17 all Class Members’ claims as demonstrated herein.
18 (c) Adequacy: Plaintiff is qualified to, and will, fairly and adequately protect the
19 interests of each Class Member with whom there is a shared, well-defined
20 community of interest and typicality of claims, as demonstrated herein. Plaintiff
21 has no conflicts with or interests antagonistic to any Class Member. Plaintiff’s
22 attorneys, the proposed class counsel, are versed in the rules governing class
23 action discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiff has incurred, and
24 throughout the duration of this action, will continue to incur costs and attorneys’
25 fees that have been, are, and will be necessarily expended for the prosecution of
26 this action for the substantial benefit of each class member.
27 (d) Superiority: A Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
28 efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of:

10
COMPLAINT
 1 i. The interests of the members of the Class in individually controlling the
2 prosecution or defense of separate actions;
3 ii. The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already
4 commenced by or against members of the Class;
5 iii. The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the
6 claims in the particular forum; and,
7 iv. The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class
8 action.
9 (e) Public Policy Considerations: The public policy of the State of California is to
10 resolve the California Labor Code claims of many employees through a class
11 action. Indeed, current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear
12 of direct or indirect retaliation. Former employees are also fearful of bringing
13 actions because they believe their former employers might damage their future
14 endeavors through negative references and/or other means. Class actions provide
15 the class members who are not named in the complaint with a type of anonymity
16 that allows for the vindication of their rights at the same time as their privacy is
17 protected.
18 34. There are common questions of law and fact as to the Class (and each subclass, if
19 any) that predominate over questions affecting only individual members, including without
20 limitation, whether, as alleged herein, Defendants have:
21 (a) Failed to pay Class Members for all hours worked, including minimum, straight
22 time, and overtime wages;
23 (b) Failed to provide meal periods and pay meal period premium wages to Class
24 Members;
25 (c) Failed to authorize and permit rest periods and pay rest period premium wages to
26 Class Members;
27 (d) Failed to provide Class Members with timely final wages
28 (e) Failed to provide Class Members with accurate wage statements

11
COMPLAINT
 1 (f) Failed to indemnify Class Members for expenditures; and
2 (g) Violated California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et. seq. as a result of
3 their illegal conduct as described above.
4 35. This Court should permit this action to be maintained as a class action pursuant
5 to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because:
6 (a) A class action is superior to any other available method for the fair and
7 efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the Class;
8 (b) The members of the Class are so numerous that it is impractical to bring
9 all members of the class before the Court;
10 (c) Plaintiff, and the other members of the Class, will not be able to obtain
11 effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a
12 class action;
13 (d) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and
14 equitable relief for the statutory violations, and in obtaining adequate
15 compensation for the damages and injuries for which Defendants are
16 responsible in an amount sufficient to adequately compensate the
17 members of the Class for the injuries sustained;
18 (e) Without class certification, the prosecution of separate actions by
19 individual members of the class would create a risk of:
20 i. Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual
21 members of the Class which would establish incompatible
22 standards of conduct for Defendants; and/or
23 ii. Adjudications with respect to the individual members which
24 would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of
25 other members not parties to the adjudications, or would
26 substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their
27 interests, including but not limited to the potential for exhausting
28 the funds available from those parties who are, or may be,

12
COMPLAINT
 1 responsible Defendants; and
2 (f) Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable
3 to the Class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate with
4 respect to the class as a whole.
5 36. Plaintiff contemplates the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed members
6 of the Class that would set forth the subject and nature of the instant action. The Defendants’
7 own business records may be utilized for assistance in the preparation and issuance of the
8 contemplated notices. To the extent that any further notices may be required, Plaintiff
9 contemplates the use of additional techniques and forms commonly used in class actions, such
10 as published notice, e-mail notice, website notice, first-class mail, or combinations thereof, or by
11 other methods suitable to the Class and deemed necessary and/or appropriate by the Court.
12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Against All Defendants for Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages)
14 37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the above
15 paragraphs in this Complaint.
16 38. “Hours worked” is the time during which an employee is subject to the control of
17 an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or
18 not required to do so.
19 39. At all relevant times herein mentioned, Defendants knowingly failed to pay to
20 Plaintiff and the Class compensation for all hours they worked. By their failure to pay
21 compensation for each hour worked as alleged above, Defendants willfully violated the
22 provisions of California Labor Code § 1194, and any additional applicable Wage Orders, which
23 require such compensation to non-exempt employees.
24 40. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover minimum and straight
25 time wages for all non-overtime hours worked for Defendants.
26 41. By and through the conduct described above, Plaintiff and the Class have been
27 deprived of their rights to be paid wages earned by virtue of their employment with Defendants.
28 42. By virtue of the Defendants’ unlawful failure to pay additional compensation to

13
COMPLAINT
 1 Plaintiff and the Class for their non-overtime hours worked without pay, Plaintiff and the Class
2 suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in amounts which are presently unknown to
3 Plaintiff and the Class and which will be ascertained according to proof at trial.
4 43. By failing to keep adequate time records required by California Labor Code §
5 1174(d), Defendants have made it difficult to calculate the full extent of minimum wage
6 compensation due Plaintiff and the Class.
7 44. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194.2, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to
8 recover liquidated damages (double damages) for Defendants’ failure to pay minimum wages.
9 45. California Labor Code § 204 requires employers to provide employees with all
10 wages due and payable twice a month. Throughout the statute of limitations period applicable
11 to this cause of action, Plaintiff and the Class were entitled to be paid twice a month at rates
12 required by law, including minimum and straight time wages. However, during all such times,
13 Defendants systematically failed and refused to pay Plaintiff and the Class all such wages due
14 and failed to pay those wages twice a month.
15 46. Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to seek recovery of all unpaid minimum and
16 straight time wages, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California
17 Labor Code §§ 218.5, 218.6, and 1194(a).
18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (Against All Defendants for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages)
20 47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the above
21 paragraphs in this Complaint.
22 48. California Labor Code § 510 provides that employees in California shall not be
23 employed more than eight hours in any workday or forty (40) hours in a workweek unless they
24 receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by law.
25 49. 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
27 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

14
COMPLAINT
 1 by the IWC is unlawful.
2 50. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff and the Class have worked more than eight
3 hours in a workday and/or more than forty (40) hours in a workweek, as employees of
4 Defendants.
5 51. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class
6 overtime compensation for the hours they have worked in excess of the maximum hours
7 permissible by law as required by California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198.
8 52. By virtue of Defendants’ unlawful failure to pay additional premium rate
9 compensation to the Plaintiff and the Class for their overtime hours worked, Plaintiff 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 53. 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 54. Plaintiff 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 55. 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
23 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.
25 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
26 (Against All Defendants for Failure to Provide Meal Periods)
27 56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the above
28 paragraphs in this Complaint.

15
COMPLAINT
 1 57. Under California law, Defendants have an affirmative obligation to relieve the
2 Plaintiff and the Class of all duty in order to take their first daily meal periods no later than the
3 start of Plaintiff’s and the Class’ 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. California Labor
5 Code § 512, and Section 11 of the applicable Wage Orders require that an employer provide
6 unpaid meal periods of at least thirty (30) minutes for each five-hour period worked. It is a
7 violation of California Labor Code § 226.7 for an employer to require any employee to work
8 during any meal period mandated under any Wage Order.
9 58. Despite these legal requirements, Defendants regularly failed to provide Plaintiff
10 and the Class with both meal periods as required by California law. By their failure to permit
11 and authorize Plaintiff 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 California Labor Code § 226.7 and the applicable
14 Wage Orders.
15 59. Under California law, Plaintiff 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 60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the above
21 paragraphs in this Complaint.
22 61. Defendants are required by California law to authorize and permit breaks of ten
23 uninterrupted minutes for each four hours of work or major fraction of four hours (i.e., more than
24 two hours). California Labor Code § 512, the applicable Wage Orders require that the employer
25 permit and authorize all employees to take paid rest periods of ten minutes each for each 4-hour
26 period worked. Thus, for example, if an employee’s work time is six hours and ten minutes, the
27 employee is entitled to two rest breaks. Each failure to authorize rest breaks as so required is
28 itself a violation of California’s rest break laws. It is a violation of California Labor Code §

16
COMPLAINT
 1 226.7 for an employer to require any employee to work during any rest period mandated under
2 any Wage Order.
3 62. Despite these legal requirements, Defendants failed to authorize Plaintiff and the
4 Class to take rest breaks, regardless of whether employees worked more than four hours in a
5 workday. By their failure to permit and authorize Plaintiff 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 California
8 Labor Code § 226.7 and the applicable Wage Orders.
9 63. Under California law, Plaintiff 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 break(s),
11 plus interest thereon.
12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Against All Defendants for Failure to Pay Wages of
14 Discharged Employees – Waiting Time Penalties)
15 64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the above
16 paragraphs in this Complaint.
17 65. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 provide that
18 if an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are
19 due and payable immediately, and that if an employee voluntarily leaves his or her employment,
20 his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than seventy-two (72) hours thereafter,
21 unless the employee has given seventy-two (72) hours previous notice of his or her intention to
22 quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting.
23 66. Within the applicable statute of limitations, the employment of many other
24 members of the Class ended, i.e., was terminated by quitting or discharge, and the employment
25 of others will be. However, during the relevant time period, Defendants failed, and continue to
26 fail to pay terminated Class Members, without abatement, all wages required to be paid by
27 California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 either at the time of discharge, or within seventy-two (72)
28 hours of their leaving Defendants’ employ.

17
COMPLAINT
 1 67. Defendants’ failure to pay those Class members who are no longer employed by
2 Defendants their wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge, or within seventy-two (72)
3 hours of their leaving Defendants’ employ, is in violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and
4 202.
5 68. California Labor Code § 203 provides that if an employer willfully fails to pay
6 wages owed, in accordance with §§ 201 and 202, then the wages of the employee shall continue
7 as a penalty wage from the due date, and at the same rate until paid or until an action is
8 commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than thirty (30) days.
9 69. The Class is entitled to recover from Defendants their additionally accruing wages
10 for each day they were not paid, at their regular hourly rate of pay, up to thirty (30) days
11 maximum pursuant to California Labor Code § 203.
12 70. Pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 218.5, 218.6 and 1194, the Class is also
13 entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, interest, expenses, and costs incurred in this
14 action.
15 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16 (Against All Defendants for Failure to Provide and
17 Maintain Accurate and Compliant Wage Records)
18 71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the above
19 paragraphs in this Complaint.
20 72. At all material times set forth herein, California Labor Code § 226(a) provides
21 that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees an accurate itemized wage
22 statement in writing showing nine pieces of information, including: (1) gross wages earned, (2)
23 total hours worked by the employee, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable
24 piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all
25 deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item,
26 (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the
27 name of the employee and the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee
28 identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal

18
COMPLAINT
 1 entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and
2 the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.
3 73. Defendants have intentionally and willfully failed to provide employees with
4 complete and accurate wage statements. The deficiencies include, among other things, the failure
5 to correctly identify the gross wages earned by Plaintiff and the Class, the failure to list the true
6 “total hours worked by the employee,” and the failure to list the true net wages earned.
7 74. As a result of Defendants’ violation of California Labor Code § 226(a), Plaintiff
8 and the Class have suffered injury and damage to their statutorily protected rights.
9 75. Specifically, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been injured by
10 Defendants’ intentional violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) because they were denied
11 both their legal right to receive, and their protected interest in receiving, accurate, itemized wage
12 statements under California Labor Code § 226(a).
13 76. Calculation of the true wage entitlement for Plaintiff and the Class is difficult and
14 time consuming. As a result of this unlawful burden, Plaintiff and the Class were also injured as
15 a result of having to bring this action to attempt to obtain correct wage information following
16 Defendants’ refusal to comply with many of the mandates of California’s Labor Code and related
17 laws and regulations.
18 77. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover from Defendants the greater of their
19 actual damages caused by Defendants’ failure to comply with California Labor Code § 226(a),
20 or an aggregate penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars ($4,000) per employee.
21 78. Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to injunctive relief, as well as an award of
22 attorney’s fees and costs to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Labor
23 Code § 226(h).
24 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 (Against All Defendants for Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures)
26 79. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the above
27 paragraphs in this Complaint.
28 80. As set forth above, Plaintiff and the Class were required to incur substantial

19
COMPLAINT
 1 necessary expenditures and losses in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties or of
2 their obedience to directions of Defendants.
3 81. Defendants violated California Labor Code § 2802, by failing to pay and
4 indemnify Plaintiff and the Class for necessary expenditures and losses incurred in direct
5 consequence of the discharge of their duties or of their obedience to directions of Defendants.
6 82. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class were damaged at least in the amounts of the
7 expenses they paid, or which were deducted by Defendants from their wages.
8 83. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, and
9 costs of suit pursuant to California Labor Code § 2802(c) and interest pursuant to California
10 Labor Code § 2802(b).
11 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12 (Against All Defendants for Violation of California
13 Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.)
14 84. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges as if fully stated herein the above
15 paragraphs in this Complaint.
16 85. Defendants, and each of them, are “persons” as defined under California Business
17 & Professions Code § 17201.
18 86. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be, unfair,
19 unlawful, and harmful to Plaintiff, other Class members, and to the general public. Plaintiff
20 seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public interest within the meaning of Code of Civil
21 Procedure § 1021.5.
22 87. Defendants’ activities, as alleged herein, are violations of California law, and
23 constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California Business & Professions
24 Code §§ 17200, et seq.
25 88. A violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. may be
26 predicated on the violation of any state or federal law. All of the acts described herein as
27 violations of, among other things, the California Labor Code, are unlawful and in violation of
28 public policy; and in addition are immoral, unethical, oppressive, fraudulent and unscrupulous,

20
COMPLAINT
 1 and thereby constitute unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of
2 California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
3 Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages
4 89. Defendants’ failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, and other benefits
5 in violation of the California Labor Code constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity prohibited
6 by California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
7 Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
8 90. Defendants’ failure to pay overtime compensation and other benefits in violation
9 of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, and 1198 constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity
10 prohibited by California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
11 Failure to Provide Meal Periods
12 91. Defendants’ failure to provide meal periods in accordance with California Labor
13 Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and the IWC Wage Orders, as alleged above, constitutes unlawful and/or
14 unfair activity prohibited by California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
15 Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods
16 86. Defendants’ failure to authorize and permit rest periods in accordance with
17 California Labor Code § 226.7 and the IWC Wage Orders, as alleged above, constitutes unlawful
18 and/or unfair activity prohibited by Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
19 Failure to Indemnify Business Expenses
20 87. Defendants’ failure to reimburse expenses incurred in accordance with California
21 Labor Code § 2802, as alleged above, constitutes unlawful and/or unfair activity prohibited by
22 California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.
23 88. By and through their unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices
24 described herein, the Defendants, have obtained valuable property, money and services from
25 Plaintiff, and all persons similarly situated, and has deprived Plaintiff, and all persons similarly
26 situated, of valuable rights and benefits guaranteed by law, all to their detriment.
27 89. Plaintiff and the Class Members suffered monetary injury as a direct result of
28 Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

21
COMPLAINT
 1 90. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the putative Class, is entitled
2 to, and does, seek such relief as may be necessary to disgorge money and/or property which the
3 Defendants have wrongfully acquired, or of which Plaintiff and the Class have been deprived,
4 by means of the above-described unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices. Plaintiff
5 and the Class are not obligated to establish individual knowledge of the wrongful practices of
6 Defendants in order to recover restitution.
7 91. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the putative class, is further
8 entitled to, and does, seek a declaration that the above-described business practices are unfair,
9 unlawful and/or fraudulent, and injunctive relief restraining the Defendants, and each of them,
10 from engaging in any of the above-described unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business
11 practices in the future.
12 92. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the putative class, has no
13 plain, speedy, and/or adequate remedy at law to redress the injuries which the Class Members
14 suffered as a consequence of the Defendants’ unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business
15 practices. As a result of the unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices described
16 above, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the putative Class, has suffered and
17 will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the Defendants, and each of them, are restrained
18 from continuing to engage in said unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices.
19 93. Plaintiff also alleges that if Defendants are not enjoined from the conduct set forth
20 herein above, they will continue to avoid paying the appropriate taxes, insurance and other
21 withholdings.
22 94. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., Plaintiff
23 and putative Class Members are entitled to restitution of the wages withheld and retained by
24 Defendants during a period that commences four years and 178 days prior to the filing of this
25 complaint; a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to pay all outstanding wages due to
26 Plaintiff and Class Members; an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Code of Civil
27 Procedure § 1021.5 and other applicable laws; and an award of costs.
28

22
COMPLAINT
 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated only with respect to the class
3 claims, prays for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
4 Class Certification
5 1. That this action be certified as a class action with respect to the First, Second,
6 Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Causes of Action;
7 2. That Plaintiff be appointed as the representative of the Class; and,
8 3. That counsel for Plaintiff be appointed as Class Counsel.
9 As to the First Cause of Action
10 4. That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants violated California
11 Labor Code §§ 204 and 1194 and applicable IWC Wage Orders by willfully
12 failing to pay all minimum and straight time wages due;
13 5. For unpaid wages as may be appropriate;
14 6. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation commencing from the
15 date such amounts were due;
16 7. For liquidated damages;
17 8. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to
18 California Labor Code § 1194(a); and,
19 9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
20 appropriate.
21 As to the Second Cause of Action
22 10. That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants violated California
23 Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 and applicable IWC Wage Orders by willfully
24 failing to pay all overtime wages due;
25 11. For unpaid wages at overtime wage rates as may be appropriate;
26 12. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid overtime compensation commencing
27 from the date such amounts were due;
28 13. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to

23
COMPLAINT
 1 California Labor Code § 1194(a); and,
2 14. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
3 appropriate.
4 As to the Third Cause of Action
5 15. That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants violated California
6 Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and the IWC Wage Orders;
7 16. For unpaid meal period premium wages as may be appropriate;
8 17. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation commencing from the
9 date such amounts were due;
10 18. For reasonable attorneys’ fees under California Code of Civil Procedure §
11 1021.5, and for costs of suit incurred herein; and,
12 19. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
13 appropriate.
14 As to the Fourth Cause of Action
15 20. That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants violated California
16 Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, and the IWC Wage Orders;
17 21. For unpaid rest period premium wages as may be appropriate;
18 22. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation commencing from the
19 date such amounts were due;
20 23. For reasonable attorneys’ fees under California Code of Civil Procedure §
21 1021.5, and for costs of suit incurred herein; and,
22 24. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
23 appropriate.
24 As to the Fifth Cause of Action
25 25. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that Defendants violated California
26 Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203 by willfully failing to pay all compensation
27 owed at the time of termination of the employment;
28 26. For statutory wage penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 203 for former

24
COMPLAINT
 1 employees who have left Defendants’ employ;
2 27. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid wages from the date such amounts were
3 due
4 28. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein; and,
5 29. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and appropriate.
6 As to the Sixth Cause of Action
7 30. That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants violated the record
8 keeping provisions of California Labor Code § 226(a) and applicable IWC
9 Wage Orders, and willfully failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements
10 thereto;
11 31. For all actual damages, according to proof;
12 32. For statutory penalties pursuant to California Labor Code § 226(e);
13 33. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to
14 California Labor Code § 226(h);
15 34. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein; and,
16 35. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
17 appropriate.
18 As to the Seventh Cause of Action
19 36. That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants violated California
20 Labor Code § 2802 by willfully failing to indemnify employees for
21 expenditures;
22 37. For unpaid wages or unreimbursed business expenses as may be appropriate;
23 38. For pre-judgment interest on any unpaid compensation commencing from the
24 date such amounts were due;
25 39. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein; and,
26 40. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
27 appropriate.
28 As to the Eighth Cause of Action

25
COMPLAINT
 1 41. That the Court declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants violated California
2 Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. by failing to pay for all hours
3 worked (minimum, straight time, and overtime wages), failing to provide meal
4 periods, failing to authorize and permit rest periods, and failing to indemnify
5 employees for expenditures;
6 42. For restitution of unpaid wages to Plaintiff and all Class Members and
7 prejudgment interest from the day such amounts were due and payable;
8 43. For the appointment of a receiver to receive, manage and distribute any and all
9 funds disgorged from Defendants and determined to have been wrongfully
10 acquired by Defendants as a result of violations of California Business &
11 Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.;
12 44. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to
13 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;
14 45. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to
15 California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and,
16 46. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable and
17 appropriate.
18 As to all Causes of Action
19 47. For any additional relief that the Court deems just and proper.
20
21 DATED: May 2, 2024 KIM LEGAL, APC
22
23
By: /s/ Frank H. Kim
24 Frank H. Kim, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
25
26
27
28

26
COMPLAINT
 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for himself and the Class on all claims so triable.
3
4 DATED: May 2, 2024 KIM LEGAL, APC
5
By: /s/ Frank H. Kim
6
Frank H. Kim, Esq.
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

27
COMPLAINT