8 9 11 12 NOTICE OF REMOVAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. 13 1332(d .

2y ago
37 Views
2 Downloads
1.30 MB
40 Pages
Last View : 13d ago
Last Download : 6m ago
Upload by : Camryn Boren
Transcription

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 1 of 101 Todd L Nunn, SBN 320687todd.nunn@klgates.com2 Kate G. Hummel SBN 305783kate.hummel@klgates.com3 K&L GATES LLP10100 Santa Monica Boulevard4 Eighth FloorLos Angeles, California 900675 Telephone: 310.552.50006Facsimile: 310.552.5001Attorneys for Defendants Expedia, Inc., and7 Expedia Group, Inc.8UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT9NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA101112SASHA BALABANOFF, on behalf of herself andothers similarly situated,Plaintiff,1314vs.Case No.: 5:21-cv-8362NOTICE OF REMOVAL UNDER 28 U.S.C.§ 1332(d) - CLASS ACTION FAIRNESSACT15 CLASSIC VACATIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited161718liability company; EXPEDIA, INC., a Washingtoncorporation; EXPEDIA GROUP, an entity ofunknown form; CLASSIC CUSTOMVACATIONS, an entity of unknown form; andDOES 1 through 50, inclusive,Defendants.192021222324252627281NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 2 of 101 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:2 TO: Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California;3 AND TO:Plaintiff Sasha Balabanoff;4 AND TO: David Yeremian and Roman Shkodnik of David Yeremian &Associates, Inc.5PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and61446, Defendants Expedia, Inc. and Expedia Group (together “Expedia”) hereby7remove this action, originally filed in the California Superior Court in the County8of Santa Clara, (Case No. 21CV386966) (the “State Court Action”), to the United9States District Court for the Northern District of California. In support of this10removal, Expedia states as follows:111.As set forth below, the case is properly removed to this Court under1228 U.S.C. § 1441 because the Court has jurisdiction over this action under the13Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), in that this matter is a civil action14in which the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of 5,000,000 exclusive of15costs and interest, there are more than 100 members in the putative class, and is16between citizens of different states.172.By filing this Notice of Removal, Expedia does not intend to waive,18and hereby reserves, any objection as to venue, the legal sufficiency of the claims19alleged in the State Court Action and all other defenses. Expedia reserves the right20to supplement and amend this Notice of Removal.21Commencement and Pendency of Action in State Court.223.Plaintiff Sasha Balabanoff (“Plaintiff”) filed a Class Action Complaint23for Damages in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 21CV386966, against24Expedia and other defendants on September 23, 2021 (the “Complaint”). Expedia was25served in the State Court Action with a copy of the Summons and Complaint by26personal service on its registered agent on September 27, 2021. As such, service was27282NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 3 of 101 completed on September 27, 2021 at the time of personal delivery. Cal. Code. Civ.2 Proc. § 415.10.34.A true and correct copy of the Complaint filed in the State Court Action4 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of the Summons filed in the5 State Court Action is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A true and correct copy of the6 National Registered Agents, Inc. Service of Process Summary Transmittal Form is7 attached hereto as Exhibit C. A true and correct copy of the Civil Lawsuit Notice8 filed in the State Court Action is attached hereto as Exhibit D. A true and correct9 copy of the Civil Case Cover Sheet filed in the State Court Action is attached hereto10 as Exhibit E. These materials comprise of “all process, pleadings and orders served”11 upon Expedia in the State Court Action. See U.S.C. § 1446(a).125.In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class defined as13 “all individuals employed by Defendants, at any time within four (4) years of the14 filing of this lawsuit, and have been employed by Defendants within the state of15 California.” (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶ 31.) The Complaint asserts twelve causes of16 action against Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class, including:17 Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor18 Code § 510; Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code § 226.7; Rest-Break Liability19 Under Labor Code § 226.7; Failure to Pay Vacation Wages; Failure to Comply with20 Labor Code § 245 and § 246; Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures Under Labor21 Code § 2802; Failure to Comply with Labor Code § 2751; Violation of Labor Code22 §226(a); Failure to Keep Required Payroll Records Under Labor Code §§ 1174 and23 1174.5; Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 203; Violation of business & Professions24 Code § 17200. (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶ 42-111.)Basis for Removal25266.The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) creates federal jurisdiction27 over lawsuits in which “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of28 5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which . . . any3NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 4 of 101 member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant,”2 and involves a putative class that consists of more than 100 members. 28 U.S.C. §§3 1332(d)(2)(A) and (d)(5). Each of these three requirements is met.Diversity of Citizenship457.28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A) requires that “any member of a class of6 plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.” For purposes of this7 section, a corporation is “deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by8 which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its9 principal place of business.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).108.When this action was commenced and at the time of this Notice of11 Removal, Plaintiff was and is a citizen and resident of the State of California. (See Ex.12 A (Complaint) ¶ 4.)139.Defendant Expedia Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. Its principal14 place of business is Seattle, Washington.1510.Defendant Expedia, Inc. is a Washington corporation. Its principal place16 of business is Seattle, Washington.1711.Because Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than at least one18 Defendant, the diversity requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) is satisfied.The Putative Class Exceeds 100 Members192012.As noted above and according to the Complaint, the putative class21 includes “all individuals employed by Defendants, at any time within four (4) years of22 the filing of this lawsuit, and have been employed by Defendants within the state of23 California.” (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶ 31.)2413.Records to which Expedia has access show that the number of putative25 class members (non-exempt employees of Defendant Classic Vacations LLC in26 California) exceeds 100. As such, the putative class size requirement set forth in 2827 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5) is satisfied.284NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 5 of 10The Amount in Controversy Exceeds 5,000,0001214.Although the Complaint does not set forth the dollar amount prayed for,3 and Expedia denies all liability alleged in the Complaint, if Plaintiff’s claims were4 substantiated and completely successful, the aggregate amount in dispute would5 exceed 5,000,000.615.Plaintiff alleges twelve causes of action on a class basis during the7 putative class period, which include:8a. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;9b. Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code § 510;10c. Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code § 226.7;11d. Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code § 226.7;12e. Failure to Pay Vacation Wages;13f. Failure to Comply with Labor Code § 245 and § 246;14g. Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures Under Labor Code § 2802;15h. Failure to Comply with Labor Code § 2751;16i. Violation of Labor Code §226(a);17j. Failure to Keep Required Payroll Records Under Labor Code §§ 1174and 1174.5;1819k. Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 203;20l. Violation of business & Professions Code § 17200.21 (See generally Ex. A (Complaint).)2216.Based on reasonable assumptions, the amount in controversy in this case23 for just a portion of these claims exceeds 5,000,000.2417.Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action alleges that “Defendants had a consistent25 policy or practice of failing to pay Employees for all hours worked, and failing to pay26 minimum wage for all time worked as required by California Law.” (See Ex. A27 (Complaint) ¶¶ 19, 43.) During the four years preceding the filing of the Complaint,28 and for which Expedia has access to data, Defendant Classic Vacations LLC had at5NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 6 of 101 least 171 nonexempt hourly employees who worked a total of 21,250 workweeks, and2 who collectively earned an average rate (which would differ between individuals) of3 19.43 per hour. Although the Complaint uses language suggesting Plaintiff is4 alleging a more frequent violation rate for failure to pay minimum wage, the following5 amount in controversy is calculated by reasonably assuming two hours of unpaid6 minimum wage per week per employee: 19.43 (average hourly rate) x 2 (unpaid7 regular hours per week) x 21,250 (workweeks during the alleged class period based on8 data to which Expedia has access) 825,775). Expedia reasonably alleges that the9 amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action is 825,775.1018.Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action alleges that “Defendants had a11 consistent policy or practice of failing to pay Employees overtime compensation at12 premium overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours a day and/or13 forty (40) hours a week, and double-time rates for all hours worked in excess of14 twelve (12) hours a day.” (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶¶ 20, 52.) Defendant Classic15 Vacations LLC had at least 171 nonexempt hourly employees who worked a total of16 21,250 workweeks, and who collectively earned an average rate (which would differ17 between individuals) of 19.43 per hour. The overtime rate of 1.5 for this average18 hourly rates is: 29.15. Although the Complaint uses language suggesting Plaintiff is19 alleging a more frequent violation rate for failure to pay overtime wages, the20 following amount in controversy is calculated by reasonably assuming two hours of21 unpaid overtime per week per employee: 29.15 (average overtime rate) x 2 (unpaid22 overtime hours per week) x 21,250 (workweeks during the alleged class period based23 on data to which Expedia has access) 1,238,875). Expedia reasonably alleges that24 the amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action is 1,238,875.2519.Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action alleges that “Defendants have regularly26 required Employees to work shifts in excess of five (5) hours without providing them27 with uninterrupted meal periods of not less than thirty (30) minutes and shifts in28 excess of ten (10) hours without providing them with second meal periods of not less6NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 7 of 101 than thirty minutes; nor did Defendants pay Employees ‘premium pay,’” and2 “Employees were consistently required to work through their meal periods which they3 were consistently denied.” (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶¶ 21, 60.) Thus, Plaintiff seeks4 one hour of premium pay for each meal break the putative class member allegedly5 missed. (See Ex. (Complaint) ¶ 62.) Although the Complaint uses language suggesting6 Plaintiff is alleging a more frequent meal period violation rate, the following amount7 in controversy is calculated by reasonably assuming two meal period violations per8 work week per employee: ( 19.43 (average hourly rate) x 2 (meal period violations9 per week) x 21,250 (workweeks during the alleged class period based on data to10 which Expedia has access) 825,775). Expedia reasonably alleges that the amount11 in controversy for Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action is 825,775.1220.Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action alleges that “Defendants have13 consistently failed to provide Employees with paid rest breaks of not less than ten (10)14 minutes for every work period of four (4) or more consecutive hours; nor did15 Defendant pay Employees premium pay for each day on which requisite rest breaks16 were not provided or were deficiently provided.” (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶¶ 22, 65.)17 Thus, Plaintiff seeks one hour of premium pay for each rest break the putative class18 member allegedly missed. (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶ 67.) Although the Complaint uses19 language suggesting Plaintiff is alleging a more frequent rest break violation rate, the20 following amount in controversy is calculated by reasonably assuming two rest break21 violations per workweek per employee: ( 19.43 (average hourly rate) x 2 (rest break22 violations per week) x 21,250 (workweeks during the alleged class period based on23 data to which Expedia has access) 825,775). Expedia reasonably alleges that the24 amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action is 825,775.2521.Plaintiff’s Ninth Cause of Action alleges that “Defendants failed to26 provide Employees with accurate itemized wage statements in writing, as required by27 the Labor Code.” (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶ 88.) Thus, Plaintiff seeks fifty dollars per28 employee for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred7NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 8 of 101 dollars per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period for a one year2 period prior to the Complaint, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand3 dollars per employee. (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶ 90.) The Complaint uses absolute4 terms indicating Plaintiff is alleging a 100% violation rate, and such a violation rate is5 consistent with Plaintiff’s other allegations of multiple violations relating to claims for6 off-the-clock, overtime, meal period and rest break requirements. The following7 amount in controversy is calculated by assuming a noncompliant wage statement was8 issued each pay period for the relevant one year period: ([171 (employees) x 509 (initial violation penalty) x 1 (representing initial violation for each employee)] 10 [ 100 (second violation penalty) x 1,500 (pay periods during period based on data to11 which Expedia has access)] 158,000). Expedia reasonably alleges that the amount12 in controversy for Plaintiff’s Ninth Cause of Action is 158,000.1322.Plaintiff’s Eleventh Cause of Action alleges that “Numerous Employees14 are no longer employed by Defendants; they either quit Defendants’ employ or were15 fired therefrom” and “Defendants failed to pay these Employees all wages due and16 certain at the time of termination or within seventy-two (72) hours of resignation.”17 (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶¶ 98-99.) Thus, Plaintiff seeks a penalty equal to a day’s18 wages, for thirty (30) days, plus interest, for each employee who separated from19 employment. (See Ex. A (Complaint) ¶ 101.) The Complaint uses absolute terms20 suggesting Plaintiff is alleging a 100% violation rate so the following amount in21 controversy is calculated by assuming that rate: (65 former employees x 19.4322 (average hourly rate) x 8 (hours per day) x 30 (maximum days for penalty) 23 303,108). Expedia reasonably alleges that the amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s24 Eleventh Cause of Action is 303,108.2523.Expedia can assume an attorney fee amount of 25% of the total amount26 claimed by Plaintiff ( 4,177,308) in the amount of: 1,044,327.2724.Calculating the amount in controversy for only six of Plaintiff’s twelve28 causes of action, using reasonable assumptions if (i) the alleged violations occurred8NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 9 of 101 “consistently” and “regularly” as alleged in the Complaint and (ii) the claims were2 entirely successful (which Defendants will contest), yields an amount in controversy3 of 5,221,635, which exceeds CAFA’s amount in controversy requirement. If4 necessary, Expedia could allege additional amounts in controversy for Plaintiff’s5 remaining claims.625.Additionally, Expedia does not have access to all of the data for Classic7 Vacation LLC employees. Expedia is removing this case based on only the data to8 which is has access and thus only accounts for a part of the potential amount in9 controversy. Expedia alleges that there is additional data supporting additional10 amounts in controversy in the control of Classic Vacation LLC.1126.Under CAFA, “the claims of all members of a putative class shall be12 aggregated” to determine the amount in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).13 Given that the Complaint seeks the above-described damages, exemplary damages,14 attorney’s fees, and other relief, the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of15 5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and therefore satisfies the jurisdictional16 minimum set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).This Notice of Removal is Timely Filed171827.Notice of removal must generally be filed “within 30 days after the19 receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading20 setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or21 within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial22 pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant,23 whichever period is shorter.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(b)(1) and 1453(b).2428.Expedia was served in the State Court Action with a copy of the25 Summons and Complaint by personal service on its registered agent on September 27,26 2021. (See Ex. C.) As such, service was completed on September 27, 2021 at the27 time of personal delivery. Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 415.10. This Notice of Removal is28 being filed within 30 days of that date.9NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 10 of 10The Removal Venue Is Proper1229.Removal is properly made to the United States District Court for the3 Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b), because the Superior Court4 for the State of California, County of Santa Cara, where the State Court Action is5 currently pending, is within the Northern District of California.Notice to Plaintiff and State Court6730.As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal is8 being promptly served upon counsel for Plaintiff and a copy is being filed with the9 Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.10WHEREFORE, Expedia respectfully requests removal of the State Court11 Action from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to12 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.1314K&L GATES LLP1516 Dated: October 27, 202117181920By: /s/ Kate G. HummelTodd L Nunntodd.nunn@klgates.comKate G. Hummelkate.hummel@klgates.comAttorneys for Defendants Expedia, Inc.and Expedia Group, Inc.212223242526272810NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1-1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 1 of 29Exhibit A

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1-1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 2 of 2912345E-FILED9/23/2021 10:42 AMClerk of CourtSuperior Court of CA,County of Santa Clara21CV386966Reviewed By: R. WalkerDA YID YEREMIAN & AS SOCIA TES, INC.David Yeremian (SBN 226337)david@yeremianlaw.comRoman Shkodnik (SBN 285152)roman@yeremianlaw.com535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705Glendale, California 91203Telephone: (818) 230-8380Facsimile: (818) 230-030867Attorneys for Plaintiff SASHA BALABAN OFF,on behalf of herself and others similarly situated8[Additional counsel listed on following page]9SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF CALIFORNIA10FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA1112SASHA BALABANOFF, on behalf of herselfand others similarly situated,CaseNo.21 CV386966CLASS ACTIONPlaintiff,131415161718Assigned for All Purposes To:Hon.Dept.:vs.CLASSIC VACATIONS, LLC, a Nevadalimited liability company; EXPEDIA, INC., aWashington corporation; EXPEDIA GROUP,an entity of unknown form; CLASSICCUSTOM VACATIONS, an entity ofunknown form; and DOES 1 through 50,inclusive,19Defendants.2021222324252627CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:I. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;2. Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime,Under Labor Code § 51 O;3. Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code §226.7;4. Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code §226.7;5. Failure to Pay Vacation Wages6. Failure to Comply with Labor Code § 245 etseq. and 2467. Reimbursement of Necessary ExpendituresUnder Labor Code§ 2802;8. Failure to Comply with Labor Code§ 2751;9. Violation of Labor Code§ 226(a);10. Failure to Keep Required PayrollRecords Under Labor Code§§ 1174 and1174.511. Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code§ 203;12. Violation of Business & Professions Code§17200 et seq.DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL28- 1COMPLAINT

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1-1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 3 of 291234DAVTYAN LAW FIRM, INC.Emil Davtyan (SBN 299363)emil@davtyanlaw.com880 E BroadwayGlendale, CA 91205Telephone: (818) 875-2008Facsimile: (818) 8-2-COMPLAINT

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1-1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 4 of 291Plaintiff SASHA BALABAN OFF, (hereinafter "Plaintiff') on behalf of herself and all2others similarly situated (collectively, "Employees"; individually, "Employee") complains of3Defendants, and each of them, as follows:45INTRODUCTION1.Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all current and former6Employees within the State of California who, at any time four (4) years prior to the filing of this7lawsuit, are or were employed as non-exempt, hourly employees by Defendants CLASSIC8VACATIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, EXPEDIA, INC., a Washington9corporation, EXPEDIA GROUP, an entity of unknown form, CLASSIC CUSTOM VACATIONS,10an entity of unknown form, and DOES 1 through 50 (all defendants being collectively referred to11herein as "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, violated various12provisions of the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission13(IWC) and California Business & Professions Code, and seeks redress therefore.142.Plaintiff is a resident of California and during the time period relevant to this15Complaint was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee within the State of16California at Defendants' facilities and offices in San Jose, California. Plaintiff and the other Class17members worked for Defendants in Santa Clara County, and in other nonexempt positions,18throughout California and, and consistently worked at Defendants' behest without being paid all19wages due. More specifically, Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Class members were20employed by Defendants and worked at Defendants' offices and other facilities where the conduct21giving rise to the allegations in this Class Action Complaint occurred. Upon information and22belief, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants and (I) shared similar job duties and responsibilities,23(2) was subjected to the same policies and practices, and (3) endured similar violations at the24hands of Defendants as the other Employee Class members who served in similar and related25positions.263.Defendants required Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class to perform work27while remaining under Defendants' control before and after being on the clock for their daily work28shift. Defendants thus failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class members for all hours worked, and-3COMPLAINT

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1-1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 5 of 291provided them with inaccurate wage statements that prevented Plaintiff and the Class from2learning of these unlawful pay practices. Defendants also failed to pruv iut:: Plaintiff a11u Litt: Class3with lawful meal and rest periods, as employees were not provided with the opportunity to take4timely, uninterrupted, and duty-free meal and rest periods as required by the Labor Code.THE PARTIES56A. The Plaintiff74.Plaintiff SASHA BALABAN OFF has resided in California and during the time8period relevant to this Complaint was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee9within the State of California at Defendants' facilities and offices in San Jose, California.10B. The Defendants115.Defendant CLASSIC VACATIONS, LLC ("CV") is a Nevada limited liability12corporation with its principle executive office in San Jose, California, and has been listed as the13employer on the wage statements issued to Plaintiff during the relevant time period. CV lists a14California address in San Jose, California with the California Secretary of State, and employs15Plaintiff and the Class members in Santa Clara County, including at Defendants' offices and16facilities in San Jose, California, and throughout California and conducts business throughout17California.186.Defendant EXPEDIA, INC ("EXPEDIA") is a Washington corporation with its19principle executive office in Seattle, Washington, and has been listed as the employer on20Plaintiffs personnel file during the relevant time period. EXPEDIA lists a California address in21Seattle, Washington with the California Secretary of State, and employs Plaintiff and the Class22members in Santa Clara County, including at Defendants' offices and facilities in San Jose,23California, and throughout California and conducts business throughout California.247.Defendant EXPEDIA GROUP is an entity of unknown form with its principle25executive office in San Jose, California, and has been listed as the employer on Plaintiffs26personnel file during the relevant time period. EXPEDIA GROUP does not list a California27address with the California Secretary of State, but upon information and bet ief, employs Plaintiff28and the Class Members in Santa Clara County, including at Defendants' offices and facilities in-4COMPLAINT

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1-1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 6 of 2912San Jose, California, and throughout California and conducts business throughout California.8.Defendant EXPEDIA GROUP is an entity of unknown form with its principle3executive office in San Jose, California, and has been listed as the employer on Plaintiff's4personnel file during the relevant time period. EXPEDIA GROUP does not list a California5address with the California Secretary of State, but upon information and belief, employs Plaintiff6and the Class Members in Santa Clara County, including at Defendants' offices and facilities in7San Jose, California, and throughout California and conducts business throughout California.89.Defendant CLASSIC CUSTOM VACATIONS ("CCV") is an entity of unknown9form with its principle executive office in San Jose, California, and has been listed as the employer10on Plaintiff's personnel file during the relevant time period. CCV does not list a California address11with the California Secretary of State, but upon information and belief, employs Plaintiff and the12Class Members in Santa Clara County, including at Defendants' offices and facilities in San Jose,13California, and throughout California and conducts business throughout California.14I 0.The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or15whatever else, of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are currentlyI6unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names under Code of17Civil Procedure§ 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants18designated herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are legally responsible in19some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend20this Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated herein as21Does I through 50 when their identities become known.2211.Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant acted in23all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other Defendants, that Defendants carried24out a joint scheme, business plan, or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and that the acts of25each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants. Furthermore, Defendants acted in26all respects as the employers or joint employers of Employees. Defendants, and each of them,27exercised control over the wages, hours or working conditions of Employees, or suffered or28permitted Employees to work, or engaged, thereby creating a common law employment-5COMPLAINT

Case 5:21-cv-08362 Document 1-1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 7 of 291relationship, with Employees. Therefore, Defendants, and each of them, employed or jointly2employed Employees.JURISDICTION AND VENUE3412.This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of Civil5Procedure § 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code § 17203. This Action is brought6as a Class Action on behalf of similarly situated Employees of Defendants pursuant to California7Code of Civil Procedure§ 382. Venue as to Defendants is also proper in this judicial district8pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure§ 395 et seq. Upon information and belief, the9obligations and liabilities giving rise to this lawsuit occurred at least in part in Santa Clara County10and Defendants maintain and operate company offices and facilities in Santa Clara County, and11employ Plaintiff and other Class members in Santa Clara County and throughout California.FACTUAL BACKGROUND121313.The Employees who comprise the Class and Collective, including Plaintiff, are14nonexempt employees pursuant to the applicable Wage Order of the IWC. Defendants hire15Employees who work in nonexempt positions at the direction of Defendants in the State of16California. Plaintiff and the Class members were either not paid by Defendants for all hours17worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and overtime rates. Specifically,18Plaintiff

Labor Code § 245 and § 246; Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures Under Labor Code § 2802; Failure to Comply with Labor Code § 2751; Violation of Labor Code §226(a); Failure to Keep Required Payroll Records Under Labor Code §§ 1174 and 1174.5; Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 203; Violation of

Related Documents:

Grade (9-1) _ 58 (Total for question 1 is 4 marks) 2. Write ̇8̇ as a fraction in its simplest form. . 90. 15 blank Find the fraction, in its

Page 2 THE WYANDOTTE ECHO Thursday, April 22, 2021 LEAL NOTICE LEAL NOTICE LEAL NOTICE LEAL NOTICE LEAL NOTICE LEAL NOTICE The Wyandotte Echo (USPS 693-680) Official Paper of Wyandotte County, Kansas PUBLISHED THURSDAY Owned and Operated By M.R.P.P, INC. ROBERTA M. PETERSON PUBLISHER 3006 Strong Avenue Kansas City, KS 66106 Classified Rates .

13-4411. Notice of post-conviction review and appellate proceedings . 13-4411.01. Notice of right to request not to receive inmate mail . 13-4412. Notice of release or escape . 13-4413. Notice of prisoner’s status . 13-4414. Notice of post-conviction release; right to be heard; hearing; final decision; free electronic recording . 13-4415.

Supplemental Notice: In addition to annual notice, public bodies must post supplemental written notice to the public a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours before every scheduled meeting. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-6(b). The public body must also maintain a copy of this supplemental notice for at least one year and the notice must contain:

SUPERSEDED 5 Hazardous Substances (Classification) Notice 2017 July 2017 1 Title This is the Hazardous Substances (Classification) Notice 2017. 2 Commencement This notice comes into force on 1 December 2017. 3 Interpretation In this notice, unless the context otherwise requires,— Act

READINGTON TOWNSHIP REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS: 2023 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP PROPOSAL RECEIPT DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2022- 11:00 AM 3 PUBLIC NOTICE READINGTON TOWNSHIP NOTICE OF SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Readington Township is accepting proposals for the provisions of the following professional services to the Readington Township .

When the filer is not required by statute to publish a notice, the OCC has the authority to publish a notice requesting comment on the filing.25 If the OCC decides to provide public notice, it may publish the notice in any manner it determines appropriate for the particular filing, such as the Federal Register or local or regional newspapers .

Nasdaq Dubai Notice No. : 73/2019 Date of Issue : 22 October 2019 Date of Expiry : Once published in Nasdaq Dubai Business Rules _ ANTI- MONEY LAUNDERING NOTICE Rule 2.19 1. Introduction 1.1 This is the Anti-Money Laundering Notice referred to at Rule 2.19. It sets out the Anti-Money