Hooters - Complaint - filed - May 28 2009

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BURTON F. BOLTUCH (SBN 070211) LAW OFFICES OF BURTON F. BOLTUCH 555 Twelfth Street, Suite 1440 Oakland, CA 94607-4046 Telephone: (510) 844-3415 Facsimile: (510) 444-3401 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dina Partridge, Jessica Rose, Marcie O’Brien, Danielle Firkins, Nicole Talbert Donoghue, Sunnie Heng, Sandra Sandoval and Sarah Peterson

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

DINA PARTRIDGE; JESSICA ROSE; MARCIE O’BRIEN; DANIELLE FIRKINS; NICOLE TALBERT DONOGHUE; SUNNIE HENG; SANDRA SANDOVAL AND SARAH PETERSON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS,

Plaintiffs, vs.

HOTT WINGS, INC.; DUBLIN WINGS, INC. dba HOOTERS OF DUBLIN; S.F. WINGS, INC. dba HOOTERS OF SAN FRANCISCO; FREMONT WINGS, INC. dba HOOTERS OF FREMONT; CAMPBELL WINGS, INC., dba HOOTERS OF CAMPBELL; NICK JOSEPH TRANI; SHIRLEY A. TRANI; JOHN NICHOLAS JOSEPH TRANI; CRAIG GUINES; DOUG KAPPY; DONALD SPECKHALS; AND DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

CASE NO.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS CLAIMS: 1. Improper Tip Pooling (Lab. Code §§ 350 et seq.); 2. Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods (Lab. Code §§ 216, 218.5, 218.6, 225.5, 226.7, 512 and 558; and Sections 11 and 12 of Wage Order 5); 3. Failure to Indemnify Employees for All Necessary Expenditures or Losses Incurred, Including Failure to Provide or Maintain Uniforms and Clothing (Lab. Code §§ 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 225.5, 450 and 2802; Section 9A of Wage Order 5); 4. Failure to Pay Wages By Improperly Deducting for Cash Shortages and Customer Walk Outs (Lab. Code §§ 216, 218.5, 218.6,


2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

221 and 225.5; and Section 8 of Wage Order 5); 5. Failure to Pay Wages Including Minimum Wage and Expenses (Lab. Code §§ 206, 510, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1185, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197 and 2802; and Wage Order 5);6. Failure to Pay Reporting Time and Other Wages; Alteration of Time Records (Lab. Code §§ 206, 216, 226, 1185, 1194(a), 1194.2 and1197; and Wage Order 5); 7. Failure to Timely Pay Compensation Due and Owing, Including to Employees Who Are Terminated or Resigned (Lab. Code §§ 201-203, 206, 216, 218.5, 218.6, 256, 510 and 1199); 8. Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17208); 9. Embezzlement; 10. Conversion; 11. Unjust Enrichment; 12. Fraud; 13. Failure to Comply With Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions (Lab. Code §§ 206, 216, 226, 226.3, 1174, 1174.5 and 1175; and Section 7 of Wage Order 5) INDIVIDUAL CAUSES OF ACTION: 14. ROSE - Kin Care (Lab. Code §§ 233 and 234) 15. ROSE - Failure to Provide a Complete Copy of Records Regarding Compensation (Lab. Code §§ 226, 226.3, 226.6, 1174, 1175 and 1197.5) 16. ROSE - Failure to Timely Supply or Allow Inspection of Personnel File (Lab. Code §§ 432, 1198.5 and 1199) 17. ROSE -Violation of Constitutional Right to Privacy and Termination In Violation of Public


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Policy (CA Constitution) 18. ROSE – Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §§ 12900, et seq.) 19. O’BRIEN - Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §§ 12900, et seq.) 20. O’BRIEN - Violation of Constitutional Right to Privacy and Termination In Violation of Public (CA Constitution) 21. PARTRIDGE - Violation of Constitutional Right to Privacy and Termination In Violation of Public (CA Constitution) DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Dina Partridge; Jessica Rose; Marcie O’Brien; Danielle Firkins; Nicole Talbert

Donoghue; Sunnie Heng; Sandra Sandoval and Sarah Peterson, on behalf of themselves, on

behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public as Private Attorney

Generals, complain of Defendants, and each of them, and for the causes of action stated herein

allege as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This Complaint seeks relief for claims brought as individual causes of action and

claims brought as a Class Action, pursuant to Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on

behalf of Plaintiffs and all non-supervisory employees (including, but not limited to, “Hooter

Girls”, bartenders, hostesses and bus boys) formerly or currently employed by Defendants

HOTT WINGS, INC. (“HOTT WINGS”), DUBLIN WINGS, INC. dba HOOTERS OF

DUBLIN (“DUBLIN HOOTERS”); FREMONT WINGS, INC. dba HOOTERS OF FREMONT

(“FREMONT HOOTERS”); S.F. WINGS, INC. dba HOOTERS OF SAN FRANCISCO (“SF

HOOTERS”); and/or CAMPBELL WINGS, INC. dba HOOTERS OF CAMPBELL

(“CAMPBELL HOOTERS”). HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,


4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SF HOOTERS and CAMPBELL HOOTERS are sometimes hereafter collectively referred to as

“HOOTERS”.

2. This Complaint is also brought against NICK JOSEPH TRANI (“N. TRANI”);

SHIRLEY A. TRANI (“S. TRANI”); JOHN NICHOLAS JOSEPH TRANI (“J. TRANI”);

CRAIG GUINES (“GUINES”); DOUG KAPPY (“KAPPY”); and DONALD SPECKHALS

(“SPECKHALS”). N. TRANI, S. TRANI, J. TRANI, GUINES, KAPPY and SPECKHALS are

sometimes herewith collectively referred to as the “INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS”.

3. For four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint (“Liability Period”), HOTT

WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL

HOOTERS had a consistent policy of requiring its non-supervisory employees, including

Plaintiffs, to pool their tips with supervisors and management, in violation of Labor Code

Sections 350 et seq.

4. Throughout the Liability Period, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS had a consistent policy,

with respect to its non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs, of failing to provide the

required the ten (10) minute rest periods, of failing to timely provide the required thirty (30)

minute meal period, of requiring the thirty (30) minute meal period to be taken at or near the

beginning of the shift, and of failing to pay the one (1) hour of pay in lieu of providing the rest or

meal period, in violation of Labor Code Sections 216, 218.5, 218.6, 225.5, 226.7, 512 and 558;

and Sections 11 and 12 of Wage Order 5-2001 (“Wage Order 5”).


FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS had a consistent policy

of requiring its non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs, to pay for their own initial

uniforms and clothing, to pay for their own additional uniforms and clothing, to maintain their


5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

uniforms and clothing including maintenance beyond normal washing, and often to pay for the

costs of their uniforms and clothing via deductions from wages owed to the employees, all in

violation of Labor Code Sections 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 225.5, 450 and 2802; and Section 9A of

Wage Order 5.



of requiring it non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs, to pay (or face discipline), often

via direct deductions from wages owed to the employees, for cash shortages and customer walk-

outs, making the employees the insurer of the employer in violation of Labor Code Sections 216,

218.5, 218.6, 221 and 225.5; and Section 8 of Wage Order 5.

7. Throughout the Liability Period, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS had a consistent policy of not

compensating its non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs, for wages owed (including

reporting time pay), minimum wage and applicable overtime, for expenses incurred, and for

work performed, including for attendance at various HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS-related events (such as

“Bikini Shoots”), at which the employees were subject to the control of HOTT WINGS,

DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS

and at which the employees were suffered or permitted to work by HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, in

violation of Labor Code Sections 510, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1185, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197 and 2802;

and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Wage Order 5.


HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS had a consistent policy of failing to


6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

timely pay compensation due and owing, at the time of termination or resignation, with respect

to its non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs, in violation of Labor Code Sections 201-

203, 206, 216, 218.5, 218.6, 256, 510 and 1199.


HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS had a consistent policy, with

respect to its non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs, of failing to pay reporting time

and/or other wages and/or of altering time records to falsely indicate that an employee did not

work, in violation of Labor Code Sections 206, 216, 226, 226.3, 510, 1174, 1174.5, 1175, 1185,

1194(a), 1194.2 and 1197; and Section 5 of Wage Order 5.


FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had a consistent policy of illegally converting various sums for

their own personal use from the tip pools of its non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs.



INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had a consistent policy of embezzling various sums for their

own personal use from the tip pools of its non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs.



INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS had a consistent policy of using various sums owing and

belonging its non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs, for the personal use of HOTT


HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, thereby unjustly enriching themselves to

the detriment of the non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs.


7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



of fraud as herein specifically alleged, to the detriment of the non-supervisory employees,

including Plaintiffs.



of failing to pay minimum wage for all hours worked by its non-supervisory employees,

including Plaintiffs, in violation of Labor Code Sections 510, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1185, 1194(a),

1194.2 and 1197; and Section 4 of Wage Order 5.


FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS had a consistent policy,

with respect to its non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs, of knowingly and

intentionally failing to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions, in

violation of Labor Code Sections 216, 226, 226.3, 1174, 1174.5 and 1175 and Section 7 of Wage

Order 5.

16. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all Class Members, bring this

Complaint pursuant to various Labor Code Sections (including, but not limited to Sections 201-

203, 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 225.5, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 350, 351, 353, 356, 450, 510, 512, 558,

1174, 1175, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1185, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197, 1199 and 2802); Wage Order 5

(including, but not limited to, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of Wage Order 5); and the

California Code of Regulations, seeking reimbursement for improper tip pooling, reimbursement

for wages for missed rest and meal periods or one (1) hour of pay in lieu thereof, reimbursement

for the purchase and maintenance of uniforms and clothing, reimbursement for sums improperly

deducted from wages, reimbursement for improper deductions for cash shortages and customer


8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

walkouts, reimbursement for expenses and wages owing, waiting time penalties, liquidated

damages, injunctive and other equitable relief, interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

17. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, on behalf of all Class Members, and on behalf

of the general public as Private Attorney Generals, pursuant to Business and Professions Code

Sections 17200-17208, also bring this Complaint seeking injunctive relief, restitution and

disgorgement of all profits enjoyed by HOOTERS and, to the extent applicable, by the

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in relation to the conduct alleged in this

Complaint, including but not limited to Paragraphs 3 through 16 and the Eighth Cause of Action

of this Complaint.

18. Plaintiffs also have various individual claims for relief, as set forth below in

Causes of Action Fourteen through Twenty-One, Paragraphs 200 to 270, inclusive, of this

Complaint.

II. VENUE

19. Venue as to each defendant is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to Section

395 of the Code of Civil Procedure. DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, HOTT

WINGS operate and are doing business in the County of Alameda, State of California. Does 1 to

100 operate and are doing business in, or committed some of the unlawful acts in, the County of

Alameda, State of California. Defendants N. TRANI, S. TRANI, J. TRANI, GUINES, KAPPY

and SPECKHALS committed some of the unlawful acts in the County of Alameda, State of

California. The unlawful acts alleged herein have a direct effect on Plaintiffs and each of them,

and those similarly situated within the County of Alameda and within the State of California.

Defendants employ numerous Class Members in the County of Alameda, including Class

Members formerly and currently employed at DUBLIN HOOTERS and FREMONT HOOTERS.


9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. PARTIES

20. Plaintiff DINA PARTRIDGE (“PARTRIDGE”) is a resident of the County of

Alameda, State of California. Throughout the Liability Period, PARTRIDGE was employed in

the County of Alameda by HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS at various times as a

Hooters’ Girl, as a bartender and as an assistant manager. Throughout the time that

PARTRIDGE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS and the

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS regularly required PARTRIDGE to pool tips with supervisors

and managers, including but not limited to, one (1) or more of the INDIVIDUAL

DEFENDANTS, with DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or with HOTT WINGS. Throughout the time

that PARTRIDGE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS

and HOTT WINGS regularly required PARTRIDGE to purchase and maintain, at

PARTRIDGE’s own expense, or deducted from wages owing to PARTRIDGE, for uniforms and

clothing required by DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS including, but not limited to

pantyhose, socks, shorts, shoes, tee-shirts and special tops. Throughout the time that

PARTRIDGE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

HOTT WINGS failed to provide PARTRIDGE with the required paid ten (10) minute rest

periods, on occasion failed to provide the required unpaid thirty (30) minute meal period and/or

required PARTRIDGE to take the thirty (30) minute meal period at times not authorized by

applicable law and regulation, and did not pay PARTRIDGE one (1) hour of pay in lieu thereof.

Throughout the time that PARTRIDGE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender,

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS improperly required PARTRIDGE to pay for cash

shortages and customer walk-outs, often making improper deductions from PARTRIDGE’s pay.

Throughout the time that PARTRIDGE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender,

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS did not compensate PARTRIDGE for wages owed


10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(including reporting time pay and/or applicable overtime) and for expenses incurred for work,

including but not limited to coming to work and not working the assigned shift and/or for

attendance at various events at which PARTRIDGE was subject to the control of DUBLIN

HOOTERS or HOTT WINGS and was suffered or permitted to work by DUBLIN HOOTERS

and HOTT WINGS. Throughout the time that PARTRIDGE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl

and as a bartender, INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS

embezzled and converted money of PARTRIDGE and unjustly enriched themselves to the

detriment of PARTRIDGE. Throughout the time that PARTRIDGE was employed as a Hooters

Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS knowingly and intentionally

failed to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions and/or altered time

records.

21. Plaintiff JESSICA ROSE (“ROSE”) is a resident of the County of Contra Costa,

State of California. Throughout the Liability Period, ROSE was employed in the County of

Alameda by HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender.

Throughout the time that ROSE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT

WINGS and the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS regularly required ROSE to pool tips with

supervisors and management, including but not limited to, one (1) or more of the INDIVIDUAL

DEFENDANTS and with DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or with HOTT WINGS. Throughout the

time that ROSE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

HOTT WINGS regularly required ROSE to purchase and maintain, at ROSE’s own expense, or

deducted wages owing to ROSE, for uniforms and clothing required by DUBLIN HOOTERS

and HOTT WINGS including, but not limited to pantyhose, socks, shorts, shoes, tee-shirts and

special tops. Throughout the time that ROSE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a

bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS failed to provide ROSE with the required


11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

paid ten (10) minute rest periods, on occasion failed to provide the required unpaid thirty (30)

minute meal period and/or required ROSE to take the thirty (30) minute meal period at times not

authorized by applicable law and regulation, and did not pay ROSE one (1) hour of pay in lieu

thereof. Throughout the time that ROSE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender,

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS improperly required ROSE to pay for cash shortages

and customer walk-outs, often making improper deductions from ROSE’s pay. Throughout the

time that ROSE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

HOTT WINGS did not compensate ROSE for wages owed (including reporting time pay and/or

applicable overtime) and for expenses incurred for work, including but not limited to coming to

work and not working the assigned shift and/or for attendance at various events at which ROSE

was subject to the control of DUBLIN HOOTERS or HOTT WINGS or was suffered or

permitted to work by DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS. Throughout the time that ROSE

was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS embezzled and converted money of ROSE and unjustly enriched

themselves to the detriment of ROSE. Throughout the time that ROSE was employed as a

Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS knowingly and

intentionally failed to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions and/or

altered time records.

22. Plaintiff MARCIE O’BRIEN (“O’BRIEN”), formerly sometimes known as

MARCIE PIPOLY or MARCIE WALTER, is currently a resident of Contra Costa County, State

of California and was formerly a resident of Alameda County. Throughout the Liability Period,

O’BRIEN was employed in the County of Alameda by HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS

as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender. Throughout the time that O’BRIEN was employed as a

Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS and the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS


12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

regularly required O’BRIEN to pool tips with supervisors and management, including but not

limited to, one (1) or more of the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, with DUBLIN HOOTERS

and/or with HOTT WINGS. Throughout the time that O’BRIEN was employed as a Hooters’

Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS regularly required O’BRIEN

to purchase and maintain, at O’BRIEN’s own expense, or deducted from wages owing to

O’BRIEN, for uniforms and clothing required by DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS

including, but not limited to pantyhose, socks, shorts, shoes, tee-shirts and special tops.

Throughout the time that O’BRIEN was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender,

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS failed to provide O’BRIEN with the required paid ten

(10) minute rest periods, on occasion failed to provide the required unpaid thirty (30) minute

meal period and/or required O’BRIEN to take the thirty (30) minute meal period at times not

authorized by applicable law and regulation, and did not pay O’BRIEN one (1) hour of pay in

lieu thereof. Throughout the time that O’BRIEN was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a

bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS improperly required O’BRIEN to pay for

cash shortages and customer walk-outs, often making improper deductions from O’BRIEN’s

pay. Throughout the time that O’BRIEN was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender,

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS did not compensate O’BRIEN for wages owed



attendance at various events at which O’BRIEN was subject to the control of DUBLIN


and HOTT WINGS. Throughout the time that O’BRIEN was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and

as a bartender, INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS

embezzled and converted money of O’BRIEN and unjustly enriched themselves to the detriment


13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of O’BRIEN. Throughout the time that O’BRIEN was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a

bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS knowingly and intentionally failed to

comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions and/or altered time records.

23. Plaintiff DANIELLE FIRKINS (“FIRKINS”) is a resident of the County of

Contra Costa, State of California. Throughout the Liability Period, was employed in Alameda

County by HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender.

Throughout the time that FIRKINS was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

HOTT WINGS and the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS regularly required FIRKINS to pool tips

with supervisors and management, including but not limited to, one (1) or more of the

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, with DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or with HOTT WINGS.

Throughout the time that FIRKINS was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender,

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS regularly required FIRKINS to purchase and maintain,

at FIRKINS’ own expense, or deducted from wages owing to FIRKINS, for uniforms and

clothing required by DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS including, but not limited to

pantyhose, socks, shorts, shoes, tee-shirts and special tops. Throughout the time that FIRKINS

was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS

failed to provide FIRKINS with the required paid ten (10) minute rest periods, on occasion failed

to provide the required unpaid thirty (30) minute meal period and/or required FIRKINS to take

the thirty (30) minute meal period at times not authorized by applicable law and regulation, and

did not pay FIRKINS one (1) hour of pay in lieu thereof. Throughout the time that FIRKINS

was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS

improperly required FIRKINS to pay for cash shortages and customer walk-outs often making

improper deductions from FIRKINS’ pay. Throughout the time that FIRKINS was employed as

a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS did not compensate


14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRKINS for wages owed (including reporting time pay and/or applicable overtime) and for

expenses incurred for work, including but not limited to coming to work and not working the

assigned shift and/or for attendance at various events at which FIRKINS was subject to the

control of DUBLIN HOOTERS or HOTT WINGS and was suffered or permitted to work by

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS. Throughout the time that FIRKINS was employed as

a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

HOTT WINGS embezzled and converted money of FIRKINS and unjustly enriched themselves

to the detriment of FIRKINS. Throughout the time that FIRKINS was employed as a Hooters’

Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS knowingly and intentionally

failed to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions and/or altered time

records.

24. Plaintiff NICOLE TALBERT DONOGHUE (“DONOGHUE”) is a resident of the

County of San Bernardino, and was formerly a resident of the County of Alameda, State of

California. Throughout the Liability Period, DONOGHUE was employed in the County of

Alameda by HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS as a Hooters’ Girl. Throughout the time

that DONOGHUE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS and

the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS regularly required DONOGHUE to pool tips with

supervisors and management, including but not limited to, one (1) or more of the INDIVIDUAL


that DONOGHUE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS

regularly required DONOGHUE to purchase and maintain, at DONOGHUE’s own expense, or

deducted from wages owing to DONOGHUE, for uniforms and clothing required by DUBLIN

HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS including, but not limited to pantyhose, socks, shorts, shoes,

tee-shirts and special tops. Throughout the time that DONOGHUE was employed as a Hooters’


15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS failed to provide DONOGHUE with the required


minute meal period and/or required DONOGHUE to take the thirty (30) minute meal period at

times not authorized by applicable law and regulation, and did not pay DONOGHUE one (1)

hour of pay in lieu thereof. Throughout the time that DONOGHUE was employed as a Hooters’

Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS improperly required DONOGHUE to pay for

cash shortages and customer walk-outs often making improper deductions from DONOGHUE’s

pay. Throughout the time that DONOGHUE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN

HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS did not compensate DONOGHUE for wages owed (including

reporting time pay and/or applicable overtime) and for expenses incurred for work, including but

not limited to coming to work and not working the assigned shift and/or for attendance at various

events at which DONOGHUE was subject to the control of DUBLIN HOOTERS or HOTT

WINGS and was suffered or permitted to work by DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS.

Throughout the time that DONOGHUE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, INDIVIDUAL

DEFENDANTS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS embezzled and converted money of

DONOGHUE and unjustly enriched themselves to the detriment of DONOGHUE. Throughout

the time that DONOGHUE was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT

WINGS knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the itemized employee wage

statement provisions and/or altered time records.

25. Plaintiff SUNNIE HENG (“HENG”) is a resident of the County of Stanislaus,

State of California. Throughout the Liability Period, was employed in the County of Alameda

by HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS as a Hooters’ Girl and bartender. Throughout the

time HENG was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS and the

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS regularly required HENG to pool tips with supervisors and


16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

management, including but not limited to, one (1) or more of the INDIVIDUAL


that HENG was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

HOTT WINGS regularly required HENG to purchase and maintain, at HENG’s own expense, or

deducted from wages owing to HENG, for uniforms and clothing required by DUBLIN

HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS including, but not limited to pantyhose, socks, shorts, shoes, tee-

shirts and special tops. Throughout the time that HENG was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as

a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS failed to provide HENG with the required


minute meal period and/or required HENG to take the thirty (30) minute meal period at times not

authorized by applicable law and regulation, and did not pay HENG one (1) hour of pay in lieu

thereof. Throughout the time that HENG was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender,

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS improperly required HENG to pay for cash shortages

and customer walk-outs often making improper deductions from HENG’s pay. Throughout the

time that HENG was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

HOTT WINGS did not compensate HENG for wages owed (including reporting time pay and/or

applicable overtime) and for expenses incurred for work, including but not limited to coming to

work and not working the assigned shift and/or for attendance at various related events at which

HENG was subject to the control of DUBLIN HOOTERS or HOTT WINGS and was suffered or

permitted to work by DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS. Throughout the time that

HENG was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS,

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS embezzled and converted money of HENG and

unjustly enriched themselves to the detriment of HENG. Throughout the time that HENG was

employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS


17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the itemized employee wage statement

provisions and/or altered time records.

26. Plaintiff SANDRA SANDOVAL (“SANDOVAL”) is a resident of the County of

Merced, State of California. Throughout the Liability Period, SANDOVAL was employed in the

County of Alameda by HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS as a Hooters’ Girl and as a

bartender. Throughout the time SANDOVAL was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS and the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS regularly required

SANDOVAL to pool tips with supervisors and management, including but not limited to, one (1)

or more of the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, with DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or with HOTT

WINGS. Throughout the time that SANDOVAL was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a

bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS regularly required SANDOVAL to

purchase and maintain, at SANDOVAL’s own expense, or deducted from wages owing to

SANDOVAL, for uniforms and clothing required by DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS

including, but not limited to pantyhose, socks, shorts, shoes, tee-shirts and special tops.

Throughout the time that SANDOVAL was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender,

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS failed to provide SANDOVAL with the required paid

ten (10) minute rest periods, on occasion failed to provide the required unpaid thirty (30) minute

meal period and/or required SANDOVAL to take the thirty (30) minute meal period at times not

authorized by applicable law and regulation, and did not pay SANDOVAL one (1) hour of pay in

lieu thereof. Throughout the time that SANDOVAL was employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a

bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS improperly required SANDOVAL to pay

for cash shortages and customer walk-outs often making improper deductions from

SANDOVAL’s pay. Throughout the time that SANDOVAL was employed as a Hooters’ Girl

and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS did not compensate SANDOVAL


18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for wages owed (including reporting time pay and/or applicable overtime) and for expenses

incurred for work, including but not limited to coming to work and not working the assigned

shift and/or for attendance at various events at which SANDOVAL was subject to the control of

DUBLIN HOOTERS or HOTT WINGS and was suffered or permitted to work by DUBLIN

HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS. Throughout the time that SANDOVAL was employed as a

Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

HOTT WINGS embezzled and converted money of SANDOVAL and unjustly enriched

themselves to the detriment of SANDOVAL. Throughout the time that SANDOVAL was

employed as a Hooters’ Girl and as a bartender, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS

knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the itemized employee wage statement

provisions and/or altered time records.

27. Plaintiff SARAH PETERSON (“PETERSON”) is a resident of the County of

Alameda, State of California. Throughout the Liability Period, PETERSON was employed in

the County of Alameda by HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS as a Hooters’ Girl.

Throughout the time that PETERSON was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

HOTT WINGS and the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS regularly required PETERSON to pool

tips with supervisors and management, including but not limited to, one (1) or more of the

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, with DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or with HOTT WINGS.

Throughout the time that PETERSON was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS

and HOTT WINGS regularly required PETERSON to purchase and maintain, at PETERSON’s

own expense, or deducted from wages owing to PETERSON, for uniforms and clothing required

by DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS including, but not limited to pantyhose, socks,

shorts, shoes, tee-shirts and special tops. Throughout the time that PETERSON was employed

as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS failed to provide PETERSON with


19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the required paid ten (10) minute rest periods, on occasion failed to provide the required unpaid

thirty (30) minute meal period and/or required PETERSON to take the thirty (30) minute meal

period at times not authorized by applicable law and regulation, and did not pay PETERSON one

(1) hour of pay in lieu thereof. Throughout the time that PETERSON was employed as a

Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS improperly required PETERSON to pay

for cash shortages and customer walk-outs often making improper deductions from

PETERSON’s pay. Throughout the time that PETERSON was employed as a Hooters’ Girl,

DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS did not compensate PETERSON for wages owed



attendance at various events at which PETERSON was subject to the control of DUBLIN


and HOTT WINGS. Throughout the time that PETERSON was employed as a Hooters’ Girl,

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS embezzled and

converted money of PETERSON and unjustly enriched themselves to the detriment of

PETERSON. Throughout the time that PETERSON was employed as a Hooters’ Girl, DUBLIN

HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the itemized

employee wage statement provisions and/or altered time records.

28. Throughout the Liability Period, non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs

PARTRIDGE, ROSE, O’BRIEN, FIRKINS, DONOGHUE, HENG, SANDOVAL and

PETERSON, and similarly situated persons including, without limitation, Hooter Girls,

bartenders, hostesses and bus boys, were employed by HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or SF HOOTERS (“Plaintiff Class”) and

members of the Plaintiff Class (“Class Members”) were subject to the same unlawful acts as the


20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

named Plaintiffs, as described above in Paragraphs 2 to 26, inclusive. A substantial portion of

the Plaintiff Class was employed in the County of Alameda, State of California.

29. Throughout Liability Period, Defendant HOTT WINGS has been a California

corporation. Throughout the Liability Period (a) HOTT WINGS has been and continues to be

engaged in the ownership, operation or management of restaurants, including DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, located in

California, including the facilities in the County of Alameda; (b) HOTT WINGS has represented

and continues to represent to the employees of DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,

SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS that the employees are part of the HOTT

WINGS team and that the employees are employees of HOTT WINGS; (c) HOTT WINGS has

formulated and continues to formulate the employment and other operational policies of

DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS.

Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent are informed and believe, and based

thereon allege, that throughout the Liability Period HOTT WINGS has been a joint and/or

integrated employer with DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or

CAMPBELL HOOTERS as to the employees working at each of these four (4) locations,

respectively.

30. Throughout the Liability Period, Defendant DUBLIN HOOTERS has been a

California corporation engaged in the ownership, operation or management of a Hooters

franchise located at 7944 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California, 94568, County of Alameda,

State of California and has employed various members of the Plaintiff Class.

31. Throughout the Liability Period, Defendant FREMONT HOOTERS has been a

California corporation engaged in the ownership, operation, or management of a Hooters


21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

franchise located at 3340 Mowry Avenue, Fremont, CA 94538, County of Alameda, State of

California and has employed various members of the Plaintiff Class.

32. Throughout the Liability Period, Defendant SF HOOTERS has been a California

corporation engaged in the ownership, operation, or management of a Hooters franchise located

at 353 Jefferson Street, City and County of San Francisco, State of California and has employed

various members of the Plaintiff Class.

33. Throughout the Liability Period, Defendant CAMPBELL HOOTERS has been a

California corporation engaged in the ownership, operation, or management of a Hooters

franchise located at 1555 S. Bascom Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008, County of Santa Clara,

State of California and has employed various members of the Plaintiff Class.

34. Throughout the Liability Period, Defendant N. TRANI has been the President and

principal shareholder of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS.

35. Throughout the Liability Period, Defendant S. TRANI has been the Chief

Financial Officer and a shareholder of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS.

36. Throughout the Liability Period, Defendant J. TRANI has been the Secretary and

a shareholder of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS

and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS.

37. Throughout the Liability Period, Defendant Craig GUINES has been a senior

management official of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS

and supervised members of the Plaintiff Class.

38. Throughout the Liability Period, Defendant DOUG KAPPY has been the Vice

President, Operations Manager and/or District Manager of, or held a similar position with,


22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HOTT WINGS and has had operational supervisory authority over DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS.

39. Throughout the Liability Period, up until approximately March, 2009, Defendant

DONALD SPECKHALS was the General Manager of DUBLIN HOOTERS and supervised

various members of the Plaintiff Class.

40. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or

otherwise, of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 though 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to

Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names under Section 474 of the

Code of Civil Procedure.

41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of the

defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful

acts referred to herein. Each DOE defendant has willfully aided and abetted each of the other

DOE defendants in the wrongful, concerted actions described herein, or acted with or in

furtherance of those actions, or assisted in carrying out the purposes alleged in this Complaint.

DOE defendants, and each of them, are sued as co-conspirators in the wrongful conduct

complained of, and the liability of each arises from the fact that each has engaged in all or part of

the improper acts, plans, schemes, conspiracies or transactions complained of in this Complaint.

Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to reflect the true names and

capacities of the defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become

known.

42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each defendant

acted in all respects pertinent to this action as the agent of the other defendants, carried out a

joint scheme, business plan or policy in all respects pertinent hereto, and the acts of each

defendant are legally attributable to the other defendants.


23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

43. Throughout the Liability Period, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

FREMONT HOOTERS have operated in and conducted business in the County of Alameda.

44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that throughout the

Liability Period SF HOOTERS and CAMPBELL HOOTERS benefited directly from the

unlawful acts of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or FREMONT HOOTERS that

occurred in the County of Alameda.

45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that HOOTERS

collectively currently employs and throughout the Liability Period has employed, hundreds, if

not thousands, of non-supervisory employees in the State of California.

46. Throughout the Liability Period, Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class

were regularly required to pool their tips into a fund, which was shared by HOTT WINGS,


and/or by the supervisors and management of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS including, but not

limited to SPECKHALS and others. Throughout the Liability Period, supervisors and

management of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS

and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, including but not limited to N. TRANI, S. TRANI, J. TRANI,

GUINES, KAPPY and SPECKHALS, have had the authority to supervise, direct and/or control

the activities of the non-supervisory employees of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, within the meaning of

Labor Code §§ 350 et seq.


were not paid their legally due and owing compensation, including but not limited to, all tips


24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

earned (and tips improperly pooled with management and supervisors), along with any penalties

pursuant to the Labor Code and to Wage Order 5.

48. Throughout the Liability Period, INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS and HOTT


HOOTERS regularly converted for their own personal use, embezzled or unjustly enriched

themselves from the tip pools of Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class.

49. Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class are informed and believe, and

based thereon allege, that HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were

and are well aware of, or received employee complaints, that it is improper and in violation of

Labor Code Sections 350 et seq. to require non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs and

the members of the Plaintiff Class, to pool tips with supervisors and management and that it is

improper to convert, embezzle and unjustly enrich themselves as herein alleged.


based thereon allege, that N. TRANI, S. TRANI and J. TRANI, as corporate officers, were and

are well aware of, or received employee complaints, that it is improper and in violation of Labor

Code Sections 350 et seq. to require non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs and the

members of the Plaintiff Class, to pool tips with supervisors and management of HOTT WINGS,

DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS.

51. Defendant SPECKHALS maintained records, including sheets entitled “Slush

Fund”, to record and enforce the improper tip pooling, including at DUBLIN HOOTERS.

Attached hereto as Exhibit One, and incorporated herein by reference, is a true and correct copy

of “Slush Fund” sheets for the period January 31 to February 21, 2008. Exhibit One is


25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

representative of “Slush Fund” sheets maintained and used throughout the Liability Period to

record and enforce the improper tip pooling.

52. PARTRIDGE was informed by SPECKHALS and/or the other INDIVIDUAL

DEFENDANTS that at least approximately Forty Dollars ($40.00) per day or Twenty Dollars

($20.00) per shift was to be deducted from the tip pools at DUBLIN HOOTERS and that these

sums were diverted for the personal use of SPECKHALS, of a kitchen supervisor, of other

management of DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or of the other corporate entities owned and controlled

by N. TRANI, S. TRANI and J. TRANI including HOTT WINGS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS.


based thereon allege, that throughout the Liability Period the improper tip pooling and “Slush

Fund” sheets were and are a practice known and/or formulated by HOTT WINGS and were in

existence at SF HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, with

knowledge by N. TRANI, S. TRANI, J. TRANI, GUINES, SPECKHALS and/or KAPPY.


FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, with respect to

Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class: (a) failed to provide the required paid ten (10)

minute rest periods; (b) failed to provide the required unpaid thirty (30) minute meal period; (c)

required employees to take the thirty (30) minute meal period at times not authorized by

applicable law and regulation, including at or soon after the shift commenced; and/or (d) failed to

pay one (l) hour of wages in lieu thereof.





26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Labor Code Sections 216, 218.5, 218.6, 225.5, 226.7, 512 and 558; and Section 12 of Wage

Order 5, to fail to provide required rest and meal periods, to require employees to take the thirty

(30) minute meal period at times not authorized by applicable law or to fail to pay one (1) hour

of wages in lieu thereof.


were regularly required to purchase and maintain, at their expense, uniforms and clothing

required by HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS

and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS including, but not limited to, pantyhose, shorts, shoes, tee-shirts

and special tops, in violation of Labor Code Sections 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 225.5, 450 and

2802; and Section 9A of Wage Order 5.





the Labor Code and of the Wage Order to require non-supervisory employees, including

Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class, to purchase and maintain, at their own expense,

uniforms and clothing.

58. Throughout the Liability Period, Plaintiff and the members of the Plaintiff Class

were threatened with discipline, actually disciplined or required to pay, often via direct

deductions from wages owed, for cash shortages and customer walk-outs, making the employees

the insurer of their employer, in violation of Labor Code Sections 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221 and

225.5; and Section 8 of Wage Order 5.


27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





the Labor Code and Wage Order 5, with respect to of non-supervisory employees, including

Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class, to threaten discipline, to impose discipline or to

require to pay, often via direct deductions from wages owed, for cash shortages and customer

walk-outs.


were not compensated for expenses incurred for work and for wages owed (including reporting

time pay, minimum wage and/or applicable overtime), including but not limited to wages owed

for reporting for work but not working the assigned shift and/or for attending at various events at

which Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class were subject to the control of HOTT


HOOTERS and were suffered or permitted to work by HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS. Plaintiffs and the

members of the Plaintiff Class are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that

throughout the Liability Period HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,

SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS altered time records to falsely indicate that

employees did not work.






28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Labor Code Sections 206, 216, 226, 510, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1185, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197 and

2802; and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Wage Order 5: (a) to not compensate employees for expenses

incurred for work and for wages owed (including reporting time pay, minimum wage and/or

applicable overtime), including but not limited to reporting for work and/or for attendance at

various events at which the non-supervisory employees were subject to the control of HOTT


HOOTERS and/or at which the employees were suffered or permitted to work by HOTT


HOOTERS and/or (b) to alter the time records of employees.

62. Throughout the Liability Period, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class

were not timely paid compensation due and owing, including but not limited to upon termination

or resignation, in violation of Labor Code Sections 201-203, 206, 216, 218.5, 218.6, 256, 510

and 1199.





the Labor Code to not timely pay compensation due and owing, including but not limited to upon

termination or resignation.


were not provided accurate itemized employee wage statements in that, inter alia, the wage

statements falsely understated gross wages earned by failing to pay for all hours worked; falsely

understated the total hours worked by ignoring the total of hours actually worked; falsely


29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

understated the net wages earned by failing to pay for all hours worked; and /or falsely

understated the “number of hours worked at each hourly rate”.



HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS were and are well aware of, or received employee

complaints, that it is improper and in violation of Labor Code Section 206, 216, 226, 226.3,

1174, 1174.5 and 1175 and of Section 7 of Wage Order 5 to knowingly and intentionally fail to

comply with the itemized employee statement provisions.

66. Defendants’ denial of legal compensation (including, but not limited to for tips,

rest periods, meal periods, uniforms and clothing and other expenses, reporting time pay,

applicable overtime, minimum wage and/or other wages) due to Plaintiffs, and to the members of

the Plaintiff Class, was deliberate, malicious, oppressive and showed a callous disregard for the

rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class who relied on Defendants to

compensate them fairly.

67. HOTT WINGS’, DUBLIN HOOTERS’, FREMONT HOOTERS’, SF

HOOTERS’ and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS’ and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’

maintaining of the “Slush Fund” sheets and of converting, embezzling or unjustly enriching

themselves from the tip pools was deliberate, malicious, oppressive and showed a callous

disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class who relied on HOTT


HOOTERS and/or on the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS to not convert, embezzle or unjustly

enrich themselves from the tip pools.

68. The failure of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS to provide meal and rest periods and to not pay the


30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

one (l) hour of wages in lieu thereof was deliberate, malicious, oppressive and showed a callous

disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class who relied on HOTT


HOOTERS to compensate them fairly.


HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS to pay for uniforms and clothing, failure to maintain

the uniforms and clothing and deducting for the cost of uniforms and clothing from the wages of

Plaintiffs and the member of the Plaintiff Class was deliberate, malicious, oppressive and

showed a callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class who

relied on HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or

CAMPBELL HOOTERS to not so act.


HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS to pay for cash shortages and customer walkouts,

threatening to impose discipline upon, imposing discipline upon, requiring the payment for,

and/or deducting amounts from wages owing, for cash shortages and customer walk-outs, with

respect to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class, was deliberate, malicious, oppressive and

showed a callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class who

relied on HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or

CAMPBELL HOOTERS to not so act.


HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS to comply with the itemized employee wage

statement provisions, with respect to Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class, was

deliberate, malicious, oppressive and showed a callous disregard for the right of Plaintiffs and


31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the members of the Plaintiff Class who relied on HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS to not so act.


HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS to pay for expenses incurred and for wages owed

(including but not limited to reporting time pay, applicable overtime and minimum wage),

including but not limited to reporting to work and for attendance at various events at which

Plaintiff and the members of the Plaintiff Class were subject to the control of HOTT WINGS,


and/or were suffered or permitted to work by HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the altering of time records

HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or

CAMPBELL HOOTERS was deliberate, malicious, oppressive and showed a callous disregard

for the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class who relied on HOTT WINGS,


to pay compensate them fairly.


HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS to timely pay compensation due and owing,

including but not limited to upon termination or resignation of Plaintiffs and/or members of the

Plaintiff Class, was deliberate, malicious, oppressive and showed a callous disregard for the

rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class who relied on HOTT WINGS,


to compensate them timely and fairly.

74. The willful failure of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS to pay compensation due Plaintiffs


32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and the members of the Plaintiff Class (a) for tips that were improperly pooled with supervisors

and management; (b) for expenses for purchasing or maintaining uniforms and clothing; (c) for

the one (l) hour of pay for missed rest and meal periods; (d) for expenses incurred and for wages

(including reporting time pay, applicable overtime and minimum wage) owed for time worked;

(e) for improper payment for or deductions from wages for cash shortages and customer walk-

outs; and/or (f) for other sums owed, and these failures were deliberate, malicious, oppressive

and showed a callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class

who relied on HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS

and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS to timely and fairly compensate them.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

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

as a class action, pursuant to Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and on behalf of the

general public, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. Plaintiffs

seeks to represent a class composed of and defined as follows:

All persons who are employed or have been employed by HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS as Hooters Girls, bartenders, hostesses, bus boys and/or in other non-supervisory capacities in the State of California who, within four (4) years of the filing of this Complaint, and who were (a) required to pool tips with HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or with supervisors and management of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS; (b) were not provided required rest and meal periods and/or were not paid one (l) hour of wages in lieu of missed rest and meal periods; (c) were required to take meal periods at unauthorized times and/or were not paid one (1) hour of wages for same; (d) were required to purchase and maintain uniforms and clothing and/or were required to have sums deducted from wages for the cost of the uniforms and clothing; (e) were threatened with and/or had discipline imposed or required to pay (or have sums deducted from wages) for cash shortages and/or customer walk-outs; (f) were not paid for expenses incurred and/or


33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for wages (including, but not limited to, reporting time pay, applicable overtime and/or minimum wage) owed for time worked including reporting to work and/or working away from the primary location of work; (g) were not timely paid wages including, but not limited to, upon resignation and/or termination; (h) were not paid other wages and/or expenses incurred; (i) were not provided accurate itemized employee wage statements; (j) had time records altered; and/or (k) were subject to the embezzlement, conversion, fraud or other alleged acts as described in this Complaint.

76. Members of the class defined above are referred to as “Class Members” or

collectively as the “Plaintiff Class.”

77. Plaintiffs reserve the right under Rule 1855(b), California Rules of Court, to

amend or modify the class description with greater specificity or further division into subclasses

or limitation to particular issues.

78. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action

under the provisions of Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure because there is a well-

defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable.

A. Numerosity

79. The Class Members as defined are so numerous that joinder of all the Class

Members is impracticable. While the precise number of Class Members has not been determined

at this time, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that HOOTERS

currently employs, and throughout the Liability Period employed, hundreds if not thousands of

employees in the State of California, who are or have been affected by the policy of improper

pooling of tips with HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or supervisors and management of HOTT


HOOTERS; of not providing required rest and meal periods, of requiring meal periods to be

taken at unauthorized times and/or of not paying of one (l) hour of wages in lieu thereof; of


34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

requiring the purchase and maintenance and/or deducting from wages for the cost of uniforms

and clothing; of threatening and/or imposing discipline or requiring payment (and/or deducting

from wages) for cash shortages and/or customer walk-outs; of not compensating for expenses

incurred and/or for wages (including reporting time pay, applicable overtime and/or minimum

wage) owed for time worked, including reporting to work and/or working away from the primary

location of work; of not timely paying wages owed, including but not limited to upon resignation

and/or termination; of not complying with the itemized employees wage statement provisions; of

not paying waiting time, liquidated damages and/or other wages and penalties owed; and/or of

having time records altered.

80. Accounting for employee turnover throughout the Liability Period necessarily

increases this number substantially. Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class are informed

and believe, and based thereon allege, that the employment records of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS will

provide information as to the number and location of all Class Members.

B. Commonality

81. There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class that

predominates over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. These common

questions of law and fact include, without limitation:

a. Whether HOOTERS violated Labor Code Sections 350 et seq. or any

other applicable provisions of the Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations or Wage

Order 5 by pooling tips of Class Members with HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or with

supervisors and management of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,

SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS;


35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b. Whether HOOTERS violated Sections 216, 218.5, 218.6, 225.5, 226.7,

512 and 558 or any other provisions of the Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations or

Sections 7, 11 and 12 of Wage Order 5 by failing to provide Class Members required rest and

meal periods, by requiring Class Members to take the meal period at unauthorized times and/or

by failing to pay Class Members one (l) hour of wages in lieu thereof;

c. Whether HOOTERS violated Sections 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 225.5, 450

and 2802 or any other provision of the Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations or

Section 9A of Wage Order 5 by requiring Class Members to pay for or provide uniforms and

clothing, by requiring Class Members to maintain uniforms and clothing and/or by deducting

the cost of the uniforms and clothing from the wages of the Class Members.

d. Whether HOOTERS violated Sections 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221 and 225.5 or

any provision of the Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations or Section 8 of Wage

Order 5 by improperly threatening and/or imposing discipline upon Class Members and/or by

requiring Class Members to pay and/or by deducting from the wages owed Class Members, for

cash shortages and/or customer walk-outs.

e. Whether HOOTERS violated Sections 206, 216, 226, 510, 1182.11,

1182.12, 1185, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197 and 2802 or any other provision of the Labor Code, the

California Code of Regulations or Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Wage Order 5 by improperly failing

to pay Class Members for wages (including but not limited to reporting time pay, applicable

overtime and/or minimum wage) and/or for expenses incurred for work, including reporting to

work and/or work away from the primary location of work and/or by altering time records of

Class Members.

f. Whether HOOTERS violated Sections 201-203, 206, 216, 218.5, 218.6,

256, 510 and 1199 or any other provisions of the Labor Code, the California Code of


36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Regulations or Wage Order 5 by failing to timely pay compensation due, including but not

limited to upon resignation and/or termination of employment.

g. Whether HOOTERS violated Sections 206, 216, 226, 226.3, 1174 and

1175 or any other provisions of the Labor Code; the California Code of Regulations; or Section

7 of Wage Order 5 by failing to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.

h. Whether HOOTERS violated Section 226 or any other provisions of the

Labor Code; the California Code of Regulations; or Section 7 of Wage Order 5 by altering time

records.

i. Whether HOOTERS violated Sections 17200 et seq. of the Business and

Professions Code by requiring Class Members to pool tips with HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or

with supervisors and management of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS; by failing to provide required rest

and meal periods and/or pay of one (l) hour of wages in lieu thereof; by requiring meal periods to

be taken at unauthorized times and/or at or near the beginning of the shift and/or not paying one

(1) hour of wages in lieu thereof; by requiring Class Members to pay for and maintain uniforms

and clothing and/or have the cost of the uniforms and clothing deducted from wages; by

threatening to impose or imposing discipline upon Class Members or by requiring Class

Members to pay for and/or deducting from wages for cash shortages and customer walk-outs; by

failing to pay Class Members wages (including reporting time pay, applicable overtime and/or

minimum wage) and/or for expenses incurred for work, including reporting to work and/or work

away from the primary location of work; by altering time records of Class Members; by failing

to timely pay Class Members all compensation due and owing, including at the time a Class


37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Member resigned and/or was terminated; and/or by failing to comply with the itemized employee

wage statement provisions.

j. Whether HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,

SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

converted for their own personal use, embezzled, unjustly enriched themselves or committed

fraud by the practice of improper tip pooling and by use of the Slush Fund;

k. Whether HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,

SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS violated Sections 17200 et seq. of the Business

and Professions Code; Labor Code Sections 201-203, 206, 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 225.5, 226,

226.7, 351, 353, 450, 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1175, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1185, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197,

1199 and 2802; the California Code of Regulations; and/or various sections of Wage Order 5,

which violations constitute a violation of fundamental public policy; and

l. Whether Plaintiff and the Members of the Plaintiff Class are entitled to

injunctive and/or other equitable relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections

17200, et seq.

C. Typicality

82. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Plaintiff Class.

Plaintiffs and all Class Members have sustained injuries and damages arising out of and caused

by HOOTERS and by the common course of conduct of HOOTERS and of the INDIVIDUAL

DEFENDANTS in violation of laws and regulations that have the force and effect of law and

statues as alleged herein.

///

///


38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D. Adequacy of Representation

83. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests

of the Plaintiff Class. Counsel for Plaintiffs is competent and experienced in litigating large

employment class actions.

E. Superiority of Class Action

84. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all Class Members is not practicable and

questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class predominate over any questions affecting

only individual Class Members. Each Class Member has been damaged and is entitled to

recovery by reason of the uniform illegal policies of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and, as applicable, of

the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS.

85. Class action treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to litigate their

claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system.

Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of

this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

IMPROPER TIP COLLECTION, TAKING OR RECEIPT OF TIP INCOME/TIP POOLING

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTIONS 350 et seq.)

PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS AGAINST HOOTERS (HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and CAMPBELL HOOTERS)

86. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 though 85 above, as though fully set forth

herein.


39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

87. By requiring its non-supervisory employees to pool tips with supervisors and

management, as alleged above, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,

SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS willfully violated the provisions of Labor Code

Sections 350 et seq. and failed to pay to its non-supervisory employees the tips that were

intended by customers of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS as gratuities for Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

they seek to represent.

88. For years, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS have

been systematically dipping into the “tip pools” of the employees at the various restaurants,

taking tips from its “Hooter Girls” and giving the money to the owners, upper level management,

supervisors and/or other statutorily defined “agents”.

89. HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS

and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS have benefitted from

the unlawful tip pooling policy as herein described. Over the last four year period, HOTT


HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS misappropriated a yet to be determined

sum from the tip pools to supplement the profits of its owners and wages of senior management

and supervisors.

90. The unlawful practices of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS gives each of these entities an

unfair competitive advantage over restaurants that comply with California law and that do not

pay owners, supervisor or agents from the tip pools of non-supervisory employees.


40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, and/or SPECKHALS and/or the other INDIVIDUAL

DEFENDANTS control every aspect of the collection, retention and distribution of tip money at

DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTER and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS,

including mandating how tips are collected, counted, logged, dropped and/or maintained in the

safe at each restaurant by an employee of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTER and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and then distributed. Employees

have no discretion to deviate from these policies and procedures governing the collection,

retention and/or distribution of pooled tips.

92. California Labor Code Section § 351 states:

No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron, or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for… 93. The definition of “gratuity” is defined at California Labor Code § 350(e)

which states:

“Gratuity” includes any tip, gratuity, money, or part thereof that has been paid or given to or left for an employee by a patron of a business over and above the actual amount due the business for services rendered or for goods, good, drink, or articles sold or served by the patron… 94. The purpose of these provisions is set forth in California Labor Code § 356

which provides that:

The Legislature expressly declares that the purpose of this article is to prevent fraud upon the public in connection with the practice of tipping and declares that this article is passed for a public reason and can not be contravened by a private agreement…


41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

95. As a result of the unlawful acts of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, Plaintiffs and the

Plaintiff Class they seek to represent have been deprived of gratuities/tips and other monies in

amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, plus interest,

under Labor Code Sections 350 et seq.

96. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent are

entitled to recover the tips improperly taken in amounts to be determined at trial, interest,

attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, and to the relief as described below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST AND MEAL PERIODS OR PAY ONE HOUR OF ADDITIONAL WAGES IN LIEU THEREOF

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 216, 218.5, 218.6, 225.5, 226.7, 512 and 558 and

SECTIONS 11 and 12 of WAGE ORDER 5)

PLAINTIFFS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS AGAINST HOOTERS


herein.

98. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent, while in the employ of


CAMPBELL HOOTERS, worked for periods of more than five (5) hours without a duty-free

meal period of no less than thirty (30) minutes and were not provided full ten (10) minute rest

periods.

99. California Labor Code § 226.7 states:

a. No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. b. If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s


42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.

100. Comparable requirements are also found in Wage Order 5. Section 11 of Wage

Order 5 states with regards to meal periods:

(A) No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day’s work the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and employee. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30 minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an “on duty” meal period and counted as time worked. An “on duty meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee form being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time. (B) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Order, the employer shall pay the employee one(l) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal period is not provided.

101. A similar provision is also contained at California Labor Code § 512(a) with

regards to meal periods:

a. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five (5) hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six (6) hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee. An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than ten (10) hours per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes, except that if the total hours worked is not more than twelve (12) hours, the second meal period may be waived consent of the employer and the employee only if the first meal period was not waived. 102. HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS

and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS regularly required Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class to take the meal

period, to the extent a meal period was provided, at or near the beginning of the shift, in violation

of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512.


43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS violated California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 by failing to

provide meal periods mandated by Labor Code § 226.7 and Section 11 of Wage Order 5, and/or

by failing to provide one (l) hour of additional wages at the employee’s regular rate of

compensation for each work day that the meal periods were not lawfully provided.

104. Section 12 of Wage Order 5 states with regards to rest periods:

(A) Every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof. However, a rest period need not be authorized for employees whose total daily work time is less than three and one-half (3 ½) hours. Authorized rest period time shall be counted, as hours worked, for which there shall be no deduction from wages. (B) If an employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the rest period is not provided. 105. HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS

and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS violated California Labor Code § 226.7 by failing to provide

rest periods mandated by Labor Code § 226.7 and Section 12 of Wage Order 5, and by failing to

provide one (l) hour of additional wages at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each

work day that the rest periods were not lawfully provided.

106. Plaintiffs and, on information and belief, the Plaintiff Class and its Class

Members, did not voluntarily or willfully waive rest or meal periods. Any express or implied

waivers obtained from Plaintiffs or the Plaintiff Class were not willfully obtained or were not

voluntarily agreed to. HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS did not permit or authorize Plaintiffs and, on


44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

information and belief, the Plaintiff Class, to take meal and/or rest periods in accordance with

applicable law.

107. By failing to keep adequate time records required by Labor Code §§ 226 and

1174(d); or by altering time records, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS injured Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff

Class and made it difficult to calculate the unpaid additional wages due Plaintiffs and the Class

Members.


FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, Plaintiffs and the

Plaintiff Class have been deprived of additional wages.

109. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are entitled to recover the unpaid

additional wages in amounts to be determined at trial, penalties in amounts to be determined at

trial including but not limited to the civil penalties set forth in Labor Code Section 558 of Fifty

Dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was

underpaid and One Hundred Dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each subsequent

violation per pay period, the interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit and to the relief as

described herein.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO INDEMNIFY EMPLOYEES FOR ALL NECESSARY EXPENDITURES OR LOSSES INCURRED, INCLUDING FAILURE TO PROVIDE

OR MAINTAIN UNIFORMS AND CLOTHING

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 225.5, 450 and 2802 and SECTION 9(A) of WAGE ORDER 5)


110. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 though 109 as though fully set forth herein.


45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS failed to reimburse employees for expenses incurred in

acquiring and/or maintaining required uniforms and clothing and/or for necessary travel

expenses. The applicable uniform and equipment requirements for food and beverage service

employees are found in Section 9 of Wage Order 5. Further Labor Code § 2802 states that:

a. An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties…. Subsection (c) of Labor Code § 2802 further states that “For purposes of this section, the terms “necessary expenditures or losses” shall include all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees incurred ny the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.”

112. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent were required to pay for

uniforms and clothing, were required to maintain their uniforms and clothing beyond normal

washing, and/or were not reimbursed for costs incurred to purchase and/or to maintain uniforms

and clothing. Further, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS often required Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs Class they

seek to represent to pay for the cost of their uniforms and clothing via deductions owed to the

employees. As such, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent seek reimbursement

for costs incurred and wages deducted in acquiring and maintaining their uniforms and clothing,

interest, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code Sections 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221,

225.5, 450 and 2802 and Section 9A of Wage Order 5.

113. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are entitled to reimbursement for

sums paid and for wages deducted, in amounts to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs of suit

and attorneys’ fees pursuant to §2802(c) and the other sections of the Labor Code referenced

above, and to the relief as described below.


46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY WAGES BUY IMPROPERLY DEDUCTING FOR CASH SHORTAGES AND/OR CUSTOMER WALK-OUTS

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221 and 225.5; SECTION 8 OF WAGE

ORDER 5)



herein.

115. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and through to the

Liability Period, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS

and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS had a consistent policy of requiring its non-supervisory

employees, including Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent, to pay (and/or face

discipline), often via direct deductions from wages owed to the employees, for cash shortages

and/or customer walk-outs. As such, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent such

reimbursement for wages deducted, sums paid directly, removal of discipline imposed, interest,

costs of suit and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code Sections 216, 218.5, 218.6, 221 and

225.5 and Section 8 of Wage Order 5.

116. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class are entitled to reimbursement for

lost wages and sums directly expended in amounts to be determined at trial, removal of

discipline imposed, interest, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, and to the relief described below.

///

///

///


47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY WAGES INCLUDING MINIMUM WAGES AND EXPENSES

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 206, 510, 1182.11, 1182.12, 1185, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197 and 2802 and SECTION 4 of WAGE ORDER 5)



herein.

118. For at least four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and through the

Liability Period, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS

and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS had a consistent policy of not compensating its non-supervisory

employees, including Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent, for wages owed,

including reporting time pay, minimum wage and/or applicable overtime; for expenses incurred;

and/or for work performed, including for attendance at various HOOTERS-related events, such

as “Bikini Shoots”, at which the employees were subject to the control of HOOTERS and at

which the employees were “suffered or permitted” to work by HOOTERS. As such, Plaintiffs

and Plaintiff Class seek reimbursement for lost wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs of suit

and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code Section 2802 and Wage Order 5.


and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS failed to pay minimum wage “for all hours worked” in violation

of Labor Code Section 1182.11, 1182.12, 1185 and other provisions of the Labor Code and

Wage Order 5.

120. California Labor Code § 1197, entitled “Payment of Less Than Minimum Wage”

states:

The minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a less wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful.


48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

121. The applicable minimum wages for Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class they

seek to represent is found in Section 4 of Wage Order 5, which states:

Every employer shall pay to each employee wages not less than seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) per hour for all hours worked, effective January 1, 2007 and not less than eight dollars ($8.00) per hour for all hours worked, effective January 1, 2008.

122. The minimum wage provisions of California Labor Code are enforceable

by private civil action pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a) which states:

Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the minimum wage for the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in an civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. 123. As described in California Labor Code §§ 1185 and 1194.2, any such

action for wages incorporates the applicable wage order of the California Industrial

Welfare Commission.

124. California Labor Code § 1194.2 also provides for the following remedies:

In any action under Section 1194 … to recover wages because of the payment of a wage less than the minimum fixed by an order of the commission, an employee shall be entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. 125. As such, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Plaintiff Class, may

bring this action for minimum wage and overtime, liquidated damages, interest, costs of

suit, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to § 1194(a).


entitled to recover the unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages in an amount

equal to the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid and in amounts to be determined at trial,

interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, and to the relief described below.


49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PAY REPORTING TIME WAGES AND OTHER WAGES; ALTERATION OF TIME RECORDS

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 206, 216, 226, 1185, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197 AND WAGE

ORDER 5)


127. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 126 above, as though fully set forth

herein.


and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS failed to pay reporting time wages to Plaintiffs and various

members of the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent by having non-supervisory employees

report to work and by sending these persons home and by having non-supervisory employees

comply with a work schedule that required them to report to work and work shifts of less then

two (2) hours on certain work days. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent are

informed and believe, and thereon allege, that HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS had a policy of altering

time records of its non-supervisory employees to falsely hide the hours worked or that persons

reported to work.

129. The applicable reporting time pay requirements for Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff

Class they seek to represent is found in Section 5 of Wage Order 5, which states:

(a) Each workday an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employees usual or scheduled day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage. (b) If an employee is required to report to work a second time in any one workday and is furnished less than two (2) hours of work on the second reporting,


50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

said employee shall be paid for two (2) hours at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.

130. The definition of shift is defined in Wage Order 5 which states:

“Shift” means designated hours of work by an employee, with a designated beginning time and quitting time.

131. California Labor Code § 1197, entitled “Payment of Less Than Minimum Wage” states:

The minimum wage for employees fixed by the commission is the minimum wage to be paid to employees, and the payment of a less wage than the minimum so fixed is unlawful. 132. The minimum wage provisions of California Labor Code are enforceable by

private civil action pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a).

133. As described, in California Labor Code §§ 1185 and 1194.2, any such action

incorporates the applicable Wage Order. Section 1182.11 and 1182.12 discuss the minimum

wage.

134. California Labor Code § 1194.2 also provides for the following remedies:

In any action under Section 1193.6 or Section 1194 to recover wages because of the payment of a wage less than the minimum wage fixed by an order of the commission, an employee shall be entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.

135. The Labor Code and Wage Order 5 also mandate applicable overtime.

136. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent may bring this

action for minimum wage and overtime, liquidated damages, interest, costs of suit, and

attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a).


entitled to recover the unpaid reporting time wages, and liquidated damages in an amount

equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid in amounts to be determined at trial, interest,

attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, and to the relief described below.


51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY COMPENSATION DUE AND OWING TO EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE TERMINATED OR RESIGNED

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 201, 202, 203, 206, 216, 218.5, 218.6, 256, 510 and 1199)


138. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 though 137 above, and Paragraphs 199-216,

and 235-243, below, as though fully set forth herein.

139. HOOTERS, among other things, with respect to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

they seek to represent, were forced to work “off the clock” without the required compensation;

were not reimbursed for expenses incurred; were not provided rest periods of at least ten (10)

minutes per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof worked; were not paid one (l) hour of

additional wages at the non-exempt employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday

that the rest period was not provided; were required to compensate HOOTERS for, have

deducted from wages owed for, or be disciplined for, cash shortages and customer walk-outs;

were required to work at least five (5) hours without a meal period or were required to take the

meal period at or near the beginning of the shift; were not paid one (l) hour of additional wages

at their regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period was not provided;

had collected from, taken from or did not receive gratuities given or intended by patrons for non-

exempt employees; were not reimbursed for business-related expenses, including but not limited

to the cost of the purchase and maintenance of uniforms and clothing or had deducted from their

wages for these costs; and/or were required to report to work and were not paid, at the

employee’s regular rate of pay and/or at the legal minimum, for time worked, including for work

away from the primary location of work.

///


52

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

140. California Labor Code Section 201 states, in part:

a. If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately…

141. Sections 201 and 202 of the California Labor Code require employers to pay its

employees all compensation due at time of termination, or under other circumstances, within 72

hours of cessation of employment. Section 203 of the Labor Code provides that if an employer

willfully fails to timely pay such compensation, the employer must continue to pay the subject

employees’ wages until the compensation is paid in full or an action is commenced. The penalty

cannot exceed thirty (30) days of wages. Section 256 of the Labor Code provides for a civil

penalty of up to thirty (30) days pay as waiting time.

142. California Labor Code Section 202(a) states:

If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages at the time of quitting. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an employee who quit without providing a 72-hour notice shall be entitled to receive payment by mail if he or she so requests and designates a mail address. The date of the mailing shall constitute the date of payment for purposes of the requirement to provide payment within 72 hours of the notice of quitting.

143. As described above, the failure of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS to timely pay Plaintiffs

and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent for all of their wages due for work performed and

this failure continued through the time at which Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class resigned and/or

were terminated from their employment with HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, violating California Labor Codes

§§ 201 and 202.

///


53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

144. California Labor Code § 203 states, in part:

If an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Sections 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until an action therefore is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days… Suit may be filed for these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for the wages form which the penalties arise. 145. The statute of limitation for an action for the wages at issue is four (4) years,

pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §17208. As noted above, HOOTERS

violated California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 by failing to pay employees who quit and/or

were terminated all of the wages due pursuant to the timelines provided in those sections, and the

failure was willful and was not inadvertent or accidental.

146. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent (a) are entitled to

compensation for all forms of wages earned as described above, including, but not limited to,

wages for work done “off the clock” and/or at hourly rates below the minimum wage, additional

wages for unprovided rest and meal periods and reporting time pay wages; and/or (b) are entitled

to compensation for failure to reimburse for necessary employee expenses, but to date have not

received such compensation, therefore entitling them to penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 203.

147. As alleged above, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent are

entitled to compensation for improperly pooled tips, but to date have not received such

compensation.


entitled to compensation for the failure to provide required rest and meal periods, for requiring

meal periods to be taken at unauthorized times or at or near the beginning of the shift and/or for

the failure to pay one (1) hour of wages in lieu thereof, but to date have not received such

compensation.


54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


entitled to compensation for the failure to pay for the purchase and maintenance of the cost of

uniforms and clothing, and/or for deducting from wages the cost of uniforms and clothing, but to

date have not received such compensation.


entitled to compensation for the threatening of and/or imposing discipline upon and/or for

requiring payment (or deducting from wages) for cash shortages and/or customer walk-outs, but

to date have not received such compensation.


entitled to compensation for the failure to compensate for wages and expenses incurred for time

worked, including reporting time pay and/or for work away from the primary location of work,

but to date have not received such compensation.


entitled to compensation for the failure to timely pay wages owed, including but not limited to

upon resignation and/or termination, but to date have not received such compensation.


entitled to compensation for the failure to pay waiting time and/or other wages and penalties

owed, but to date have not received such compensation.

154. More than thirty (30) days have passed since Plaintiffs and members of the

affected Class Members of the Plaintiff Class have left the employ of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and, on

information and belief, have not timely received payment pursuant to Labor Code § 203. As a

consequence of the willful conduct of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS in not paying for all earned wages


55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and/or for all expenses incurred, Plaintiffs and certain Class Members are entitled to thirty (30)

work days of wages as a penalty under Labor Code Section 203, interest, attorneys’ fees and

costs of suit.


entitled to recover, in amounts to be determined at trial, wages owed and up to thirty (30) days of

wages as a penalty, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, and to the relief as described below.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

(CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200 - 17208)



herein.

157. HOOTERS engaged in unlawful and unfair activity prohibited by Business and

Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. The actions of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS as alleged within this

Complaint, constitute unlawful and unfair business practice with the meaning of Business and

Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.

158. The improper policy of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS of requiring Class Members to pool

tips with supervisors and managers of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, of failing to provide required rest

and meal periods and/or pay of one (l) hour of wages in lieu thereof; of requiring meal periods to

be taken at unauthorized times and/or at or near the beginning of the shift and/or not paying one

(1) hour of wages in lieu thereof; of failing to pay for the cost and maintenance of uniforms and


56

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

clothing and/or deducting the cost of the uniforms and clothing from wages; of threatening to

impose and/or imposing discipline upon, and/or by requiring payment from or deducting from

wages, for cash shortages and/or customer walk-outs; of failing to pay for expenses incurred

and/or for wages owed for work, including reporting to work and/or work away from the primary

location of work; of failing to timely pay all compensation due and owing, including at the time

or resignation and/or termination; of failing to comply with the itemized employee wage

statement provisions; and/or of altering time records all constitute unlawful activity prohibited by

Business and Professions Code Section, 17200 et seq., including, but not limited to Sections

17200, 17202, and 17203.

159. The actions of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,

SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS in failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

in a lawful manner, as alleged in this Complaint, constitutes false, unfair, fraudulent and

deceptive business practices, and prejudices Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to

represent, within the meaning of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et. seq.

160. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are entitled to an injunction and to other equitable

relief against such unlawful practices in order to prevent future damage, for which there is no

adequate remedy at law, and to avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits. Plaintiffs bring this cause

individually and as members of the general public as a representative of all others subject to

HOOTERS’ unlawful acts and practices.

161. As a result of its unlawful acts, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS have reaped and

continue to reap unfair profits and to be unlawfully enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and the

Plaintiff Class they seek to represent. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections

17202-17203, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS


57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS should be enjoined from these activities and made to disgorge

these ill-gotten gains and restore to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class for the wrongfully withheld

tips; for the cost to purchase and/or to maintain uniforms and clothing; for the sums improperly

deducted from wages for the cost of uniforms and clothing; for the sums for not providing

required rest and meal periods and/or not paying one (l) hour of wages in lieu thereof; for the

sums for requiring meal periods to be taken at unauthorized times and/or at or near the beginning

of the shift and/or failing to pay one (1) hour of wages in lieu thereof; for the sums for

threatening to impose and/or imposing discipline, and/or for requiring payment or improperly

deducting from wages for cash shortages and/or customer walk-outs; for the sums for failing to

pay for expenses incurred and/or for wages owed for work, including for reporting to work

and/or for work away from the primary location of work; for sums for failing to timely pay all

compensation due and owing, including at the time of resignation and/or termination; for sums

for failing to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions; and/or for sums for

altering time records.

162. As a direct and proximate result of the unfair business practices of HOTT


HOOTERS, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, (a) are

entitled to equitable and injunctive relief, including full restitution, disgorgement and specific

performance of all compensation, including, but not limited to, payment for improperly pooled

tips, payment for cash shortages and/or customer walk-outs, payment of one (l) hour of wages

per day for failure to provide rest and meal periods, payment of one (1) hour of wages per day

for requiring meal periods to be taken at unauthorized times and/or at or near the beginning of

the shift, payment for failure to pay other wages (including reporting time, applicable overtime

and/or minimum wage), for payment for other expenses incurred and/or payment for failure to


58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions, which have been unlawfully

withheld from Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class as a result of the business acts and

practices described herein and (b) are entitled to equitable and injunctive relief enjoining HOTT


HOOTERS from failing to cease and desist from engaging in the practices described herein.

163. The illegal conduct alleged herein is continuing, and there is no indication that


CAMPBELL HOOTERS will not continue such activity into the future. If HOTT WINGS,


are not enjoined from the conduct set forth in this Complaint, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS will

continue to require Class Members to pool tips with supervisors and management, will continue

to fail to pay Class Members all compensation due upon cessation of employment, will continue

to fail to provide Class Members with required rest and meal periods or one (l) hour of pay per

day in lieu thereof, will continue to require Class Members to take meal periods at unauthorized

times including at or near the beginning of the shift, will continue to fail to provide Class

Members with uniforms and clothing, will continue to fail to maintain the uniforms and clothing

of Class Members, will continue to impose discipline and/or threaten to impose discipline upon

Class Members and/or to require Class Members to pay for and/or have deducted from wages for

cash shortages and/or customer walk-outs, will continue to fail to compensate Class Members for

wages (including reporting time, applicable overtime and/or minimum wage) and expenses, will

continue to fail to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions and/or will

continue to alter time records.


59

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

164. Plaintiffs further request that the Court issue a preliminary and permanent

injunction prohibiting HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS from requiring Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to

pool tips with supervisors and management, from failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

all compensation due upon cessation of employment, from failing to provide Plaintiffs and the

Plaintiff Class with rest and meal periods or one (l) hour of wages per day in lieu thereof, from

requiring Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to take meal periods at unauthorized times including at

or near the beginning of the shift and/or from failing to pay one (1) of wages per day in lieu

thereof, from failing to provide Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class uniforms and clothing and/or

from failing to maintain the uniforms and clothing, from requiring payment from Plaintiffs and

the Plaintiff Class for and/or deducting from their wages for the cost of uniforms and clothing,

from threatening to impose and/or from imposing discipline on Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

and/or from requiring payment from and/or deducting from the wages of Plaintiffs and the

Plaintiff Class for cash shortages and/or customer walk-outs, from failing to fully and timely

compensate for wages (including reporting time, applicable overtime and/or minimum wage)

and/or for expenses incurred, from failing to comply with the itemized employee wage statement

provisions and/or from failing to keep accurate time records.

165. As described above, HOOTERS has violated the following California laws, by

various actions, including, but not limited to:

• violating California Labor Code §§ 201-203 and other provisions of the Labor Code by failing to pay all wages earned and unpaid at the time of certain Class Members’ termination of employment from HOOTERS; • violating California Labor Code § 202 by failing to pay all wages earned and unpaid within seventy-two (72) hours of the time of quitting by certain Class Members’ resignation of employment with HOOTERS;


60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• violating California Labor Code § 206 by failing to pay, without condition and within the time set by the applicable statutory provisions, all wages, or parts thereof, conceded by HOOTERS to be due; • violating California Labor Code § 216 by willfully refusing to pay wages due and payable after demand was made while having the ability to pay, and by falsely denying the amount or validity thereof, or that the same is due, with intent to secure for itself any discount upon such indebtedness, and with intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay, or defraud, the Class Members to whom such indebtedness is due; • violating California Labor Code § 226 by failing to provide Class Members with accurate wage statements and by altering time records of Class Members; • committing a misdemeanor in violation of California Labor Code §§ 216 and 226.6 by knowingly and intentionally violating the provisions of California Labor Code § 226 and of other sections of the Labor Code; • violating California Labor Code § 226.7 by requiring Class Members to work during meal and rest periods mandated by Wage Order 5 and failing to provide said Class Members one (l) hour additional wages at the non-exempt employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided; • violating California Labor Code § 510 by failing to compensate Class Members at the rate of no less than one and one-half (1 ½) times the regular rate of pay for an employee for all work in excess of eight (8) hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any workweek and the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek, and by failing to compensate Class Members at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee for work in excess of twelve (12) hours in one (l) day and any work in excess of eight (8) hours on any seventh day of a workweek; • violating California Labor Code § 512 by failing to provide Class Members with a meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes for every work period of more than five (5) hours per day and by not providing Class Members with a second meal period of not less than thirty (30) minutes for a work period of more than ten (10) hours per day; • violating California Labor Code §§ 1182.11, 1182.12, 1185 and 1197 by failing to pay at least the minimum wage for all hours worked by Class Members; • violating California Labor Code § 1194 by failing to pay minimum and/or overtime wages for all hours worked by Class Members; • violating California Labor Code § 1194.2 by failing to liquidated damages for failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked by Class Members; • violating California Labor Code § 350 et seq. by withholding gratuities and improperly pooling the tips of Class Members;


61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• violating California Labor Code § 2802 by failing to indemnify the Class Members for all necessary expenditure or losses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties and their obedience to the direction of HOOTERS; • violating of Wage Order 5 by failing to pay reporting time wages for each workday a Class Member was required to report to work and did report to work, but was not put to work or was furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay reporting time wages; and • violating California Labor Code § 226 by failing to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions and by altering time records of Class Members.

166. The activities of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,

SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS also constitute unfair practices in violation of

Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. because the practices of HOTT WINGS,


violate the above noted laws, and/or an established public policy and/or the practices are

immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to Plaintiff, the Plaintiff

Class they seek to represent and the public and cause Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class a loss of

money or property.


entitled to the injunctive relief and the disgorgement described above, interest, costs of suit,

attorneys’ fees, and to the relief described below.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

EMBEZZLEMENT


AND THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS


herein.


62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

169. By requiring non-supervisory employees, including Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff

Class they seek to represent, to pool tips with supervisors and management, as alleged above,


CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, willfully embezzled for

their own personal use, or for the use of other persons or entities, various sums of Plaintiffs and

of the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent.


FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or of the

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent have

been deprived of gratuities/tips in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery

of such amounts, plus interest.

171. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent are informed and believe,

and based thereon allege, that HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,


continue to retain some or all of said property, thereby entitling Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

to injunctive relief.

172. Each of these acts were done willfully and maliciously with oppression and with

fraud, by HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or

CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or by the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, with the deliberate

intent to injure Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, for the financial gain of HOTT WINGS,


and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, entitling Plaintiffs and the Class members, in

addition to actual damages, to punitive damages, as defined in Civil Code Section 3294.5, to

make an example of and to punish HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT


63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL

DEFENDANTS.

173. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent request the

relief as described below.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

HOOTERS AND INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS FOR CONVERSION



174. Plaintiffs and the Class Members re-allege and incorporate by reference

Paragraphs 1 though 173 above, as though fully set forth herein.

175. By engaging in the acts described above, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS wrongfully took

possession of property, including money, belonging to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek

to represent, without permission or authorization, and retained, altered or converted some or all

of the said property.

176. By engaging in the acts described above, INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

wrongfully took possession of property, including money, belonging to Plaintiffs and the

Plaintiff Class they seek to represent without permission or authorization, and retained, altered or

converted some or all of the said property.

177. As a direct and proximate result of the decision of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or of

the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS to retain and convert the property belonging to Plaintiffs and

to the Plaintiff Class and to convert it for their own use, benefit and financial gain, HOTT



64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS have caused Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff

Class to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

178. Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent are informed and believe,

and based thereon allege, that HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,


continue to retain some or all of said property, thereby entitling Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class

to injunctive relief.

179. Each of these acts were done willfully and maliciously with oppression and fraud

by HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or




and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, entitling Plaintiffs and the Class Members, in




DEFENDANTS.

180. Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class labored for and were subject to the control of


CAMPBELL HOOTERS, and were permitted and/or required to suffer work, all for the benefit

of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or

CAMPBELL HOOTERS. By engaging in the act described above, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS illegally

converted to their own use the lawful wages of non-exempt employees, including by unlawfully


65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

requiring them to work “off the clock” and/or without compensation; by failing to provide rest

and meal periods without compensating non-exempt employees one (l) hour’s pay for each

instance such periods were not provided and converting these sums to their own use; by failing to

reimburse non-exempt employees for expenses incurred on behalf of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and

converting these sums to their own use; by converting to their own use the tips intended by

customers to be given to non-supervisory employees and/or by the other acts as herein alleged.



INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent have

been deprived of sums in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such

amounts, plus interest and statutory penalties thereon, attorneys’ fees, and costs, pursuant to

Labor Code Sections 200 et seq., 500 et seq., 1100 et seq., and/or other provisions of California

law.

182. Each of these acts were done willfully and maliciously with oppression and fraud

by HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or




and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, entitling Plaintiffs and the Class Members, in




DEFENDANTS.


66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

UNJUST ENRICHMENT



184. Plaintiffs and the Class Members re-allege and incorporate by reference

Paragraphs 1 though 183 above, as though fully set forth herein.

185. By engaging in the acts described above, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,


INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS have and continue to benefit from their wrongdoing and have

been unjustly enriched by reaping the benefits of their unlawful activities, all to the damage and

irreparable harm of Plaintiffs and of the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent.

186. The circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for HOTT WINGS,


and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS to retain the benefits received from the actions

described above without repaying the lost value to Plaintiffs and to the Plaintiff Class.



///

///

///


67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD



188. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 187 above, as though

fully set forth herein.

189. Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class are informed and believe, and based thereon allege

that, by engaging in affirmative acts and representations designed to conceal and prevent

Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class they seek to represent from discovering the acts alleged herein,


CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS committed fraudulent acts,

including but not limited to:

a. affirmatively misrepresenting the circumstances of the tip pooling and to

whom the tip pools would be distributed to induce Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff

Class to continue to contribute to the tip pools and to not arouse suspicion

concerning the acts of supervisors and management to share in the tip pools;

b. affirmatively misrepresenting that all of the tip pools were being paid to

non-exempt employees, when such was not true, to induce Plaintiffs and the

Plaintiff Class to continue to contribute to the tip pools and by taking affirmative

measures to conceal the theft;

c. affirmatively misrepresenting the circumstances for which wages and

expense reimbursements were owed to induce Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to

continue to work without proper compensation for wages and expenses; and


68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

d. affirmatively misrepresenting that time records were accurate and that no

other wages and expenses were due and owing to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs

Class when such was not the case and by taking affirmative measures to conceal

their actions;

The misrepresentations made by HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS,

SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were

material in that they were made with the intent to induce Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to rely

on the misrepresentations.

190. The reliance by Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class on these fraudulent

misrepresentations of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or of the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS was

reasonable. Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class are informed and believe, and based thereon allege,

that HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or

CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS intended on doing harm to

Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, acted in coordinated and surreptitious fashion to carryout their

plan and/or went to extraordinary lengths to conceal their malfeasance. The trust of Plaintiffs

and of the Plaintiff Class in HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS was

justifiable, as was their belief that HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT


DEFENDANTS were honest and not working against the interests of the Plaintiff and the

Plaintiff Class.

191. As a proximate result of the actions alleged herein, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the


69

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS caused Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to suffer damages in an

amount to be proven at trial. The acts of fraud of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,


INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS were committed with oppression and/or malice and/or with the

deliberate intent to injure Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, to improve the business of HOTT


HOOTERS and/or for the financial gain of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT


DEFENDANTS, thereby entitling Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, in addition to actual

damages and to attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be proven at trial, to punitive damages

as defined in Civil Code Section 3294.5, to damages to make an example of and to punish HOTT


HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS.



THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITEMIZED EMPLOYEE WAGE STATEMENT PROVISIONS

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 206, 216, 226, 226.3, 1174, 1174.5 and 1175 AND

SECTION 7 OF WAGE ORDER 5)


193. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 192 above, as though

fully set forth herein.

194. California Labor Code Section § 226(a) states:

Every employer shall, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish each of his or her employees, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or


70

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

voucher paying the employee’s wages, or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (l) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, …(4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her social security number except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number may be shown on the itemized statement, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. The deductions made from payments of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day and year and a copy of the statement or a record of the deductions hall be kept on file by the employer for at least three (3) years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California.

195. HOOTERS failed to provide “accurate itemized statements” to Plaintiff and the

Plaintiff Class they seek to represent because the wage statements, inter alia:

a. falsely understated the gross wage earned by not including the portion of tips taken by supervisors and senior management;

b. falsely understated the gross wages earned by failing to pay for all hours

worked;

c. falsely understated the gross wages earned by failing to pay for uniforms and clothing and the maintenance of uniforms and clothing or by deducting these cost from the gross wages;

d. falsely understated the total hours worked by ignoring the total number of

hours actually worked;

e. falsely understated the gross wages earned by deducting from wages or requiring payment for cash shortages and customer walk-outs; and

f. falsely understated the net wages earned by failing to pay for all hours

worked.

196. California Labor Code § 226(e) and (g) provide for the remedy for the violations

described above. Respectfully, these provisions state:


71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(e) An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employee to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the Initial pay period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

(g) An employee may also bring an action for injunctive relief to ensure

compliance with this section, and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

197. In addition, Section 1174 of the California Labor Code, and Section 7 of Wage

Order 5 require HOOTERS to maintain and preserve, in a centralized location, among other

items, records showing the names and addresses of all employees employed, payroll records

showing the hours worked daily by and the waged paid to its employees. Plaintiff and the

Plaintiff Class they seek to represent are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that

HOOTERS created a uniform practice of knowingly and intentionally failing to comply with

Labor Code § 1174. HOOTERS’ failure to comply with Labor Code § 1174 is unlawful

pursuant to Labor Code §1175. When an employer fails to keep such records, employees may

establish the hours worked solely by their testimony and the burden of overcoming such

testimony shifts to the employer.

198. By failing to keep adequate time records required by Labor Code §§ 226 and

1174, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or

CAMPBELL HOOTERS injured Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class and made it difficult to

calculate the unpaid wages due Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class and therefore,

Plaintiffs and each Class Member so injured is entitled up to Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) in

penalties and to the penalties as set for in Labor Code Section 226.3.

199. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are entitled to Labor Code

penalties in an amount to be determined at trial not to exceed Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000)


72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

per Class Member, penalties in an amount to be determined at trial pursuant to Labor Code

Section 226.3, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief per California Labor Code §

226(g) and to the relief described below.

VII. INDIVIDUAL CAUSES OF ACTION

A. JESSICA ROSE

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

200. Plaintiff ROSE incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 199 above, as though fully set

forth herein.

201. ROSE was employed by DUBLIN HOOTERS and, on information and belief, by

HOTT WINGS, from on or about June 2, 2008 to July 16, 2008. At all relevant times throughout

ROSE’s employment, SPECKHALS was the General Manager of DUBLIN HOOTERS.

SPECKHALS frequently inquired of ROSE concerning ROSE’s personal life and SPECKHALS

commented that SPECKHALS was upset that ROSE was not “sharing” information about

ROSE’s non-work related activities and personal plans.

202. ROSE felt uncomfortable and harassed as a result of SPECKHALS’s ongoing

demands and inquiries and felt that it was an invasion of ROSE’s right to privacy about non-

work related activities.

203. On or about July 12, 2008, ROSE informed her manager, Ryan, that ROSE

needed to take time off work to care for her infant daughter. ROSE was told that ROSE could

have the time off from work. On ROSE’s next scheduled day of work, July 13, SPECKHALS

called ROSE into his office and told ROSE to not work that day because ROSE had not reported

to work and had not contacted SPECKHALS on his personal cell telephone. ROSE informed

SPECKHALS that ROSE had been granted permission to take off. SPECKHALS told ROSE

that to get time off, ROSE had to personally contact SPECKHALS on his cell telephone.


73

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SPECKHALS told ROSE to punch out and go home. ROSE was not paid “show-up” pay and

lost wages and tips for the day.

204. On or about July 14, 2008, DUBLIN HOOTERS and, on information and belief,

HOTT WINGS terminated ROSE’s employment by failing and refusing to schedule ROSE to

work and by failing and refusing to place ROSE on the work schedule.

205. DUBLIN HOOTERS failed to timely provide ROSE with her final paycheck in

violation of Sections 201, 202, 203, 206, 216, 218.5, 218.6, 225.5, 226 and other provisions of

the Labor Code.

206. ROSE is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the termination

was in retaliation for ROSE exercising ROSE’s statutory rights for time off, for ROSE’s

rejection of SPECKHALS’ attempts to violate ROSE’s rights to privacy and for ROSE’s

rejection of SPECKHALS’ advances.

207. Just prior to ROSE’s termination, ROSE had asked for time off from work to care

for ROSE’s child and ROSE had received permission to do. Thus, DUBLIN HOOTERS and, on

information and belief, HOTT WINGS, had de facto granted ROSE permission to be off of work

pursuant to the California Kin Care law, Labor Code Sections 233-234. The time off was

granted, but when ROSE took the day off, ROSE was then disciplined.

208. Prior to ROSE’s termination, ROSE had informed SPECKHALS that ROSE

objected to the intrusion by SPECKHALS of ROSE’s right to privacy, a right protected by

Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, in that ROSE did not want SPECKHALS

questioning ROSE about ROSE’s personal activities, ROSE did not want to share ROSE’s non-

work related activities with SPECKHALS and ROSE did not want to acquiesce to

SPECKHALS’ advances.


74

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

209. ROSE is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that ROSE’s

termination was based, in whole or in part, on ROSE asserting ROSE’s right to take time off

from work, on ROSE invoking her right to privacy and/or on ROSE refusing to acquiesce to

SPECKHALS’ advances and, therefore, the termination was wrongful and in violation of public

policy and in violation of the California Government Code and California Labor Code.

210. Commencing on August 27, 2008, in writing, ROSE requested the right to inspect

the personnel records that DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS maintains relating to

ROSE’s performance or to any grievance concerning ROSE and requested the right, within

twenty-one (21) calendar days, to have a complete copy of ROSE’s records regarding ROSE’s

compensation as set forth in Labor Code Section 226.

211. DUBLIN HOOTERS and, on information and belief, HOTT WINGS failed to

timely make the contents of these personnel records available to ROSE as mandated by Labor

Code § 1198.5.

212. More than twenty-one (21) calendar days have elapsed from the date of the

request for compensation records and DUBLIN HOOTERS failed to timely comply with Labor

Code Section 226.

213. Based on the failure to permit ROSE to inspect or copy records within the twenty-

one (21) calendar day period, ROSE is entitled to recover a penalty of Seven Hundred Fifty

Dollars ($750), as well as injunctive relief to ensure compliance and an award of reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs.

214. On or about April 15, 2009, ROSE filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) against DUBLIN

HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS and SPECKHALS, Case No. E200809M1341-00 rsc, 01 rsc and 02-

rsc, respectively. Notice of Case Closure as to all three Complaints were issued on or about


75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

April 21, 2009 entitling ROSE to bring a civil lawsuit. All three complaints alleged, inter alia,

unlawful acts based on ROSE’s sex and in retaliation for ROSE’s engaging in a protected

activity or requesting a protected leave or accommodation

215. The DFEH Complaints alleged improper termination, layoff, harassment,

impermissible non-work related inquiries, failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation and

retaliation.

216. ROSE has lost wages and benefits, suffered emotional distress and suffered other

general and special damages.

217. ROSE is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the actions of HOTT

WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS were willful, deliberate and done with malice and oppression,

entitling ROSE, in addition to actual damages, to punitive damages, as defined by Civil Code

Section 3294.5, to make an example of and to punish HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

SPECKHALS.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

KIN CARE

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 233 and 234)

ROSE AGAINST HOTT WINGS AND DUBLIN HOOTERS

218. ROSE re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 217 above,

as though fully set forth herein.

219. WHEREFORE, ROSE requests lost wages, tips and benefits, reinstatement,

injunctive relief reinstating ROSE to ROSE’s former job, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of

suit.

///

///


76

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE COPY OF RECORDS REGARDING COMPENSATION

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 226, 226.3, 226.6, 1174, 1174.5 and 1197.5)

ROSE AGAINST HOTT WINGS AND DUBLIN HOOTERS



221. The failure of DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS to timely comply with

the requirements of Labor Code Section 226 regarding ROSE’s repeated requests for a copy of

records regarding her compensation violated Labor Code Sections 226, 226.3, 226.6, 1174,

1174.5 and 1197.5.

222. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1197.5(d) HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN

HOOTERS are required to maintain for two (2) years the ROSE’s records regarding wages,

classifications and other terms and conditions of employment.

223. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 226(f), the failure to comply with ROSE’s

request subjects HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS to a penalty and, pursuant to Labor

Code Section 226.3, subjects HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS to additional civil

penalties.

224. WHEREFORE, ROSE is therefore entitled to the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty

Dollars ($750) and to the other penalties as set forth in Labor Code Section 226.6 in amounts to

be determined at trial, interest, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, and to the relief described below.

///

///

///


77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO TIMELY SUPPLY OR ALLOW INSPECTION OF PERSONNEL FILE

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 432, 1198.5 AND 1199)

ROSE AGAINST HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS AND SPECKHALS



226. The failure of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or SPECKHALS to

timely comply with California Labor Code Section 1198.5, despite the repeated requests of

ROSE, including in writing on August 27 and November 13, 2008, entitle ROSE to recover One

Hundred Dollars ($100) from HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or SPECKHALS.

227. WHEREFORE, ROSE is entitled to the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100),

interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and to the relief described below.

EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

(CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION)

ROSE AGAINST DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS AND SPECKHALS



229. Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution guarantees the right to privacy

for all persons in California. This constitutional right to privacy includes “autonomy” privacy,

such as the interest persons have in making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal

activities without observation, intrusion or interference. Article I, Section 1 is self-executing and

creates a legally enforceable right and a right of action against private parties.


78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

230. The actions of DUBLIN HOOTERS, of SPECKHALS, and, on information and

belief, of HOTT WINGS, including with respect to the request that ROSE provide to

SPECKHALS details of ROSE’s personal life and, by inference, that, if ROSE refused, ROSE

would be terminated, violated ROSE’s right to privacy. ROSE had a legally protected privacy

interest and a reasonable expectation of privacy. The conduct of DUBLIN HOOTERS, of

SPECKHALS and/or of HOTT WINGS seriously invaded and violated that privacy.

231. The termination of ROSE by DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS was

wrongful and in violation of public policy. In doing the acts alleged, SPECKHALS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS acted willfully, with malice and/or with oppression, entitling

ROSE, in addition to actual damages, to punitive damages, as defined by Civil Code Section

3294.5, to make an example of and to punish HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

SPECKHALS.

232. WHEREFORE, ROSE is entitled to back and future wages and benefits,

reinstatement, injunctive relief ordering reinstatement, emotional distress damages, interest, costs

of suit, attorneys’ fees, special damages, other general damages, punitive damages, and to the

relief described below.

NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT

(CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12900 et seq.)

ROSE AGAINST HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS AND SPECKHALS



234. By its actions, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or SPECKHALS

violated the California Government Code including but not limited to failure to prevent


79

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

harassment or retaliation, improper termination, improper layoff, harassment, impermissible non-

work related inquires and/or retaliation. In doing the acts alleged SPECKHALS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS and/or HOTT WINGS acted willfully, with malice and/or with oppression, entitling

ROSE, in addition to actual damages, to punitive damages, as defined by Civil Code Section

3294.5, to make an example of and to punish HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

SPECKHALS.

235. WHEREFORE, ROSE is entitled to lost back and future wages and benefits,

reinstatement, injunctive relief ordering reinstatement, interest, emotional distress damages,

special damages, other general damages, punitive damages, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, and

to the relief described below.

B. MARCIE O’BRIEN

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

236. O’BRIEN re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 199

above, as though fully set forth herein.

237. O’BRIEN was employed by DUBLIN HOOTERS and, on information and belief,

by HOTT WINGS, from May, 2004 to on or about October, 2008, with a period when O’BRIEN

did not work.

238. In April, 2008 O’BRIEN was on maternity leave and O’BRIEN’s child was born

on April 20, 2008. O’BRIEN returned to work at DUBLIN HOOTERS in June, 2008.

Thereafter, O’BRIEN again became pregnant. In approximately late, September, 2008,

O’BRIEN had a miscarriage. Thereafter, DUBLIN HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS failed to

continue to employ O’BRIEN and failed and refused to place O’BRIEN on the work schedule.


80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

239. Starting in approximately September, 2008 HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS

and SPECKHALS retaliated against O’BRIEN and HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS

discriminated against O’BRIEN, in violation of the California Government Code.

240. O’BRIEN is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that O’BRIEN’s

termination were based, in whole or in part, on O’BRIEN being pregnant and on the medical

conditions related to the pregnancy; that HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS failed to

prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation; that HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS

and SPECKHALS retaliated against O’BRIEN due to her pregnancy and related medical

conditions; and that HOTT WINGS and DUBLIN HOOTERS failed to accommodate

O’BRIEN’s pregnancy.

241. O’BRIEN was not timely provided her final paycheck.

242. On or about April 21, 2009, O’BRIEN filed Complaints of Discrimination with

the DFEH against DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS and SPECKHALS, Case Nos.

E200809C1040-00-sc, 01 and 02sc. Notice of Case Closure as to all three complaints were

issued on or about April 24, 2009, entitling O’BRIEN to bring a civil lawsuit. All three

complaints alleged, inter alia, unlawful actions based on O’BRIEN’s sex and pregnancy and

related medical conditions and alleged unlawful termination, layoff, harassment, retaliation,

denial of accommodations, failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation and denial of

pregnancy accommodations.

243. O’BRIEN has lost wages and benefits, suffered emotional distress and incurred

other general and special damages.

244. O’BRIEN is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the actions of HOTT

WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and SPECKHALS were willful, deliberate and done with malice

and oppression, entitling ROSE, in addition to actual damages, to punitive damages, as defined


81

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

by Civil Code Section 3294.5, to make an example of and to punish HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS and SPECKHALS.

TWENTY CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT

(CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 12900 et seq.)

O’BRIEN AGAINST HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS AND SPECKHALS

245. O’BRIEN re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 199 and

236-244 above, as though fully set forth herein.

246. By its actions, HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and SPECKHALS violated

the California Government Code.

247. WHEREFORE, O’BRIEN is entitled to lost back and future wages and benefits,

reinstatement, injunctive relief ordering reinstatement, interest, emotional distress damages,

special and exemplary damages, other general damages, punitive damages for the reason set

forth above in paragraph 244, costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, and to the relief described below.

TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION



O’BRIEN AGAINST DUBLIN HOOTERS AND SPECKHALS

248. O’BRIEN re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 199 and






82

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



250. The actions of DUBLIN HOOTERS, of SPECKHALS and, on information and

belief, of HOTT WINGS, violated O’BRIEN’s right to privacy. O’BRIEN had a legally

protected privacy interest and a reasonable expectation of privacy. The conduct of DUBLIN

HOOTERS, of SPECKHALS and, on information and belief, of HOTT WINGS, seriously

invaded and violated that privacy.

251. The termination of O’BRIEN by DUBLIN HOOTERS was wrongful and in

violation of public policy. In doing the acts alleged, SPECKHALS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and

HOTT WINGS acted willfully and with malice.

252. WHEREFORE, O’BRIEN is entitled to back and future wages and benefits,


of suit, attorneys’ fees for general, special and punitive damages, (for the reasons set for above in

Paragraph 244, and to the relief described below.

C. SUNNIE HENG

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

253. Plaintiff HENG incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 199 above, as

though fully set forth herein.

254. HENG was employed by DUBLIN HOOTERS and, on information and belief, of

HOTT WINGS, from on or about September, 2006 to on or about May, 2008.

255. DUBLIN HOOTERS and, on information and belief, HOTT WINGS failed and

refused to timely provide to HENG with her final paycheck at the cessation of HENG’s

employment, in violation of Labor Code Section 201, 202, 203, 216, 218.5, 218.6, 510 and 1199.


83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

256. During various times when HENG was employed, DUBLIN HOOTERS and, on

information and belief, of HOTT WINGS, requested HENG, or inferentially imposed on HENG

as a condition of employment, that HENG work or attend events for the benefit of DUBLIN

HOOTERS and HOTT WINGS, including “Bikini-shoots”, away from HENG’s primary location

of work, all without compensation for wages and expenses.

TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY FINAL PAY CHECK

(CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 201-203, 216, 218.5, 218.6, 256, 510 and 1199)

HENG AGAINST HOTT WINGS AND DUBLIN HOOTERS

257. HENG re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 199 and


258. HENG was not paid HENG’s final paycheck on the day of HENG’s cessation of

employment, in violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 206, 216, 218.5, 218.6, 256,

510 and 1199.

259. WHEREFORE, HENG is entitled to recover in amounts to be determined at trial,

wages owed of up to thirty (30) days, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, and to the relief

described below.

C. DINA PARTRIDGE

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

260. Plaintiff PARTRIDGE incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 198 above,


261. PARTRIDGE was employed by DUBLIN HOOTERS and, on information and

belief, of HOTT WINGS, from on or about May 10, 2004 until on or about July 3, 2008. On or

about March 18, 2007, PARTRIDGE was promoted to a management position with DUBLIN


84

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HOOTERS. Throughout the period of time that PARTRIDGE was a management employee,

neither KAPPY, GUINES, SPECKHALS or any other senior-management person of DUBLIN

HOOTERS or of HOTT WINGS trained or instructed PARTRIDGE as to compliance with

California’s wage and hour laws regarding uniforms and clothing, rest breaks and other matters.

262. Throughout PARTRIDGE’s employment, PARTRIDGE received ongoing

positive evaluations and excellent results from “Customer Evaluations” including shopper

scorecards.

263. In February to April 2008, PARTRIDGE was concerned with the failure of

DUBLIN HOOTERS to provide appropriate rest and meal periods for the employees, including

those employees supervised by PARTRIDGE, and with the possibility of other violations of law

by DUBLIN HOOTERS and one (1) or more of the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. Therefore,

PARTRIDGE, on her own time and away from work, contacted an attorney via email using

PARTRIDGE’s private email account.

264. In approximately May-June, 2008, PARTRIDGE ascertained that DUBLIN

HOOTERS and SPECKHALS had printed out the email sent by PARTRIDGE to the attorney, as

set forth above in Paragraph 268. Based on the comments made to PARTRIDGE and on the

actions of DUBLIN HOOTERS and SPECKHALS, PARTRIDGE reasonably believed that

DUBLIN HOOTERS, SPECKHALS and, on information and belief, of HOTT WINGS, were

upset with PARTRIDGE’s efforts to ascertain the legal rights of employees, including

PARTRIDGE. Thereafter, PARTRIDGE noticed that in the treatment PARTRIDGE received

from DUBLIN HOOTERS, SPECKHALS and, on information and belief, of HOTT WINGS,

was negative and not justified.

265. PARTRIDGE is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the

termination of PARTRIDGE, in whole or in part, was based upon and in retaliation for


85

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PARTRIDGE contacting an attorney, for PARTRIDGE exercising PARTRIDGE’s rights to

ascertain legal provisions and for what DUBLIN HOOTERS, SPECKHALS and HOTT WINGS

believed was whistle-blowing.

TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION



PARTRIDGE AGAINST DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS AND SPECKHALS

266. PARTRIDGE re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 199

and 260-265 above, as though fully set forth herein.






268. The actions of DUBLIN HOOTERS, of SPECKHALS and, on information and

belief, of HOTT WINGS, violated PARTRIDGE’s right to privacy. PARTRIDGE had a legally

protected privacy interest and a reasonable expectation of privacy. The conduct of DUBLIN

HOOTERS, of SPECKHALS and, on information and belief, of HOTT WINGS, seriously

invaded and violated that privacy.

269. The termination of PARTRIDGE by DUBLIN HOOTERS and, on information

and belief, of HOTT WINGS, was wrongful and in violation of public policy. In doing the acts

alleged, SPECKHALS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and/or HOTT WINGS were willful and/or

deliberate and/or were done with malice and oppression, entitling PARTRIDGE, in addition to


86

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

actual damages, to punitive damages, as defined by Civil Code Section 3294.5, to make an

example of and to punish HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS and SPECKHALS.

270. WHEREFORE, PARTRIDGE is entitled to back and future wages and benefits,


of suit, attorneys’ fees, for general special and punitive damages and to the relief described

below.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dina Partridge, Jessica Rose, Marcie O’Brien, Danielle Firkins,

Nicole Talbert Donoghue, Sunnie Heng, Sandra Sandoval and Sarah Peterson, on behalf of

themselves, on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the General Public as

Private Attorneys generals, pray for judgment as follows:

1. For the relief described above at the end of each Cause of Action;

2. For attorneys’ fess and costs of suit;

3. For interest on all sums from the date the sums were due;

4. For any Cause of Action for which the illegal conduct resulted in payment of less

than minimum wage or non-payment of applicable overtime, recovery of wages and statutory

penalties in amounts according to proof at trial;

5. As to Causes of Action 1 through 13:

a. That the Court determines that these causes of action may be maintained

as a class action with the named PLAINTIFFS (Dina Partridge, Jessica Rose, Marcie O’Brien,

Danielle Firkins, Nicole Talbert Donoghue, Sunnie Heng, Sandra Sandoval and Sarah Peterson)

appointed as class representatives;

b. That the Court name the attorneys for PLAINTIFFS appearing on the

above caption as class counsel;


87

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c. For compensatory and liquidated damages, as applicable for a cause of

action, in amounts according to proof at trial, with interest thereon;

d. For economic and/or special damages, as applicable for a cause of action,

in amounts according to proof at trial, with interest thereon;

6. As to the First Cause of Action:

For recovery of tips improperly taken by or distributed to HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN

HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or

the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, in amounts according to proof at trial, with interest thereon;

7. As to the Second Cause of Action:

a. For recovery of unpaid wages, including as applicable overtime wages and

minimum wages, plus an additional one (l) hour of pay for each work day that the rest or meal

period was not provided or that the meal period was mandated to be taken at or near the

beginning of the shift in amounts according to proof at trial;

b. For recovery of liquidated damages and penalties, according to proof at

trial, for the alteration or falsification of time records;

c. For recovery of One Hundred Dollars ($100) for each initial violation and

Two Hundred Dollars ($200) for each subsequent violation or for any willful or intentional

violation;

8. As to the Third Cause of Action:

a. For recovery of wages deducted and any costs incurred by direct payment

for acquiring and maintaining uniforms and clothing in amounts according to proof at trial;

b. For recovery of One Hundred Dollars ($100) for each initial violation and

Two Hundred Dollars ($200) for each subsequent violation or for any willful or intentional

violation;


88

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9. As to the Fourth Cause of Action:

a. For removal of any discipline imposed;

b. For recovery of One Hundred Dollars ($100) for each initial violation and

Two Hundred Dollars ($200) for each subsequent violation or any for willful or intentional

violation;

10. As to the Fifth Cause of Action:

For recovery of unpaid minimum wages and for liquidated damages, in an amount equal

to wages unlawfully unpaid, in amounts according to proof at trial;

11. As to the Sixth Cause of Action:

a. For recovery of unpaid minimum wages, reporting time pay and legal

overtime compensation, and for liquidated damages, as applicable, in an amount equal to wages

unlawfully unpaid, in amounts according to proof at trial;

b. For recovery of unpaid reporting time wages.

12. As to the Seventh Cause of Action:

a. For the recovery set forth above with respect to Causes of Action One

through Six, inclusive;

b. For up to thirty (30) days of wages as a penalty.

13. As to the Eighth Cause of Action:

a. That HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS be found to have engaged in unfair competition in

violation of Sections 17200, et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code;

b. That HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS be ordered and enjoined to make restitution to the

Plaintiff Class due to the unfair competition of HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS,


89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FREMONT HOOTERS, SF HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS, including ordering

disgorgement of the wrongfully-obtained revenues, earnings, profits and/or compensation,

pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17204;

c. That HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS be enjoined from continuing the illegal course of

conduct, as alleged herein;

d. That HOTT WINGS, DUBLIN HOOTERS, FREMONT HOOTERS, SF

HOOTERS and/or CAMPBELL HOOTERS further be enjoined to cease and desist from unfair

competition in violation of Sections 17200, et seq. of the California Business and Professions

Code;

e. That the Court temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoin HOTT


HOOTERS and all persons or entities acting in concert with them, whether directly or indirectly,

from engaging in any of the illegal conduct alleged herein;

f. That the Court, as part of its injunctive order, direct HOTT WINGS,


and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, and all persons or entities acting in concert with

them, directly or indirectly, to affirmatively and immediately do the following:

(i) account for and pay to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class all gains,

profits and/or savings derived from their illegal conduct;

(ii) disgorge all monies that Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class paid to


CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS for the time period that



90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS breached their duties owed

to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class and all monies received as a result of those breaches;

(iii) to pay Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class all damages sustained as a

result of the unlawful acts;

(iv) return to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class any and of all of the stolen

property;

(v) pay the attorneys’ fees and all other costs of the action incurred by

Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class;

(vi) Pay prejudgment and post judgment interest at the maximum legal

rate, provided for by the laws of California, as applicable, as an element of damages which

Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class suffered as a result of the wrongful and illegal acts of HOTT


HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS;

(vii) Pay restitution to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class for all Claims for

Relief for which restitution is authorized;

14. As to the Ninth Cause of Action:

a. For recovery of the sums embezzled in amounts according to proof at trial;

b. For recovery of general, special and punitive damages;

c. For injunctive relief as set forth above with respect to the Eighth Cause of

Action;

15. As to the Tenth Cause of Action:

a. For recovery of the sums converted in amounts according to proof at trial;



91

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Action;

16. As to the Eleventh Cause of Action:

a. For recovery of the sums that were retained and unjustly taken in amounts

according to proof at trial;



Action;

17. As to the Twelfth Cause of Action:

a. For recovery of the sums taken by fraud in amounts according to proof at

trial;



Action;

18. As to the Thirteenth Cause of Action:

a. For recovery of a sum not to exceed Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) per

individual;

b. For injunctive relief to ensure compliance with Labor Code Section 226;

19. As to the Fourteenth Cause of Action:

a. For recovery of lost wages, tips and benefits;

b. For reinstatement of ROSE to her former position with no loss of

seniority;

c. For injunctive relief to enforce the reinstatement;


92

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20. As to the Fifteenth Cause of Action:

a. For injunctive relief to enforce ROSE’s right to the documents;

b. For recovery of the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750);

21. As to the Sixteenth Cause of Action:

a. For the recovery of One Thousand Dollars ($1000);

b. for injunctive relief to enforce ROSE’s rights regarding ROSE’s personnel

file;

22. As to the Seventeenth Cause of Action:



seniority;

c. For injunctive relief to enforce the reinstatement;

d. For recovery of emotional distress damages, according to proof at trial;

e. For injunctive relief to enforce ROSE’s right to privacy and to enjoin

DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS and SPECKHALS from interfering with these rights;

f. For general, special and punitive damages;

23. As to the Eighteenth Cause of Action:



seniority;

c. For injunctive relief to enforce the reinstatement and to enjoin additional

violations of the FEHA;

d. For recovery of emotional distress damages according to proof at trial;

e. For general, special and punitive damages;


93

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24. As to the Nineteenth Cause of Action:

For recovery of lost wage and wages of up to thirty (30) days;

25. As to the Twentieth Cause of Action:


b. For reinstatement of O’BRIEN to her former position with no loss of

seniority;




e. For general, special and punitive damages;

26. As to the Twenty-One Cause of Action:


b. For reinstatement of O’BRIEN to her former position with no loss of

seniority;

c. For injunctive relief to enforce the reinstatement and to enjoin further



e. For injunctive relief to enforce O’BRIEN’s right to privacy and to enjoin

DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS and SPECKHALS from interfering with these rights;

f. For recovery of general, special and punitive damages;

27. As to the Twenty-Second Cause of Action:


b. For reinstatement of PARTRIDGE to her former position with no loss of

seniority;


94

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




e. For injunctive relief to enforce PARTRIDGE’s right to privacy and to

enjoin DUBLIN HOOTERS, HOTT WINGS and SPECKHALS from interfering with these

rights;

f. For recovery of general, special and punitive damages;

28. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper; and

29. For entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and Members of the Plaintiff Class against


CAMPBELL HOOTERS and/or the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS on all Claims for Relief.

LAW OFFICES OF BURTON F. BOLTUCH Dated: May 28, 2009 By: ____________________________________ Burton F. Boltuch (SBN 070211)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dina Partridge, Jessica Rose, Marcie O’Brien, Danielle Firkins,

Nicole Talbert Donoghue, Sunnie Heng, Sandra Sandoval and Sarah Peterson, on behalf of themselves, on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys General

/// /// /// /// ///


95

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs and Members of the Plaintiff Class hereby demand trial of their claims by jury to the

extent authorized by law.

Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF BURTON F. BOLTUCH

Dated: May 28, 2009 By: ____________________________________ Burton F. Boltuch (SBN 070211)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dina Partridge, Jessica Rose, Marcie O’Brien, Danielle Firkins,

Nicole Talbert Donoghue, Sunnie Heng, Sandra Sandoval and Sarah Peterson, on behalf of themselves, on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys General

Documents

Hooters - Complaint - filed - May 28 2009