1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK

Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)

2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
4 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
5 Firmsite: www.bamlawca.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
12
13 ROBI DAY; and individual, on behalf of CASE No.
himself and all persons similarly situated,
14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:

15 Plaintiff, (1) UNFAIR COMPETITION IN

VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF.
16 vs. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.;
(2) FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
17 WDC EXPLORATION & WELLS, a WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB.
California Corporation; and Does 1 CODE §§ 204, 210, 218, 510, 1194 &
18 through 50, 1198;
(3) FAILURE TO PROVIDE
19 ACCURATE ITEMIZED STATEMENTS
Defendant. IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
20 § 226; and,
(4) FAILURE TO REIMBURSE
21 EMPLOYEES FOR REQUIRED
EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF CAL.
22 LAB. CODE § 2802.

23 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

24
25
26
27
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 1 Plaintiff Robi Day ("PLAINTIFF"), an individual, alleges upon information and belief,
2 except for his own acts and knowledge, the following:
3
4 NATURE OF THE ACTION
5 1. Defendant WDC Exploration & Wells hereinafter also referred to as "WDC" or
6 "DEFENDANT" is one of the largest privately owned full service drilling companies in the
7 United States with its headquarters in Woodland, California and operations throughout the
8 West, Midwest and Southwest. WDC serves the water supply, environmental, geotechnical,
9 mining, energy, and construction industries by providing well installation, soil sampling and
10 rock coring, well abandonment, depth discreet water sampling, conductor casing installation,
11 and well development services. To perform these intricate drilling services, WDC retains
12 "Drilling Operators" and "Drilling Helpers" collectively referred to herein as "Drillers" who are
13 responsible and required to carry out the company’s regional operations. During the CLASS
14 PERIOD, WDC systematically failed to record and pay PLAINTIFF Robi Day "PLAINTIFF"
15 and all the other Class Members for the actual number of hours worked, including straight time,
16 reporting time and overtime. WDC intentionally and unlawfully failed to pay the PLAINTIFF
17 and the Class Members for compensable travel time which was spent commuting to and from
18 work sites and traveling out-of-town as part of the employees’ principal job duties. WDC’s
19 uniform policy and practice was to require the Drillers to use company vehicles to commute
20 directly to and from assigned work sites. WDC forbid these employees from using their
21 personal vehicles to report to work sites because the company vehicles were equipped with the
22 necessary tools for the employees to complete their principal job duties. As a result, these
23 employees regularly traveled to report to work under DEFENDANT’s control and for
24 DEFENDANT’s benefit. Consequently, all time spent traveling to perform such work
25 constitutes "hours worked" and is therefore compensable. In addition, WDC failed to reimburse
26 these employees for all necessary expenses incurred in connection with DEFENDANT’s
27 required travel. During the CLASS PERIOD, WDC also did not have in place an immutable
28 timekeeping system to accurately record and pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-1-
 1 the actual number of hours worked. WDC’s timekeeping system can be unilaterally altered by
2 WDC so as to only show hours designated by WDC and the PLAINTIFF and the Class
3 Members thereby work without their time being accurately recorded. WDC’s uniform policies
4 and practices to not pay employees for required travel in company vehicles and its timekeeping
5 system are evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records.
6 2. PLAINTIFF brings this Action against WDC on behalf of himself and on behalf
7 of a class consisting of all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for WDC as a Driller in
8 California during the CLASS PERIOD ("CLASS" or "Class Members"). PLAINTIFF brings
9 this Class Action to fully compensate the Class Members for their losses incurred during the
10 CLASS PERIOD caused by WDC’s uniform policy and practice which fails to compensate the
11 PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, for all hours worked. WDC’s uniform policy and practice
12 alleged herein is an unfair, deceptive and unlawful practice whereby WDC retained and
13 continues to retain wages due PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, for all hours worked.
14 PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, seek an injunction enjoining such conduct by WDC in
15 the future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and all Class Members who have been
16 economically injured by DEFENDANT's past and current unlawful conduct, and all other
17 appropriate legal and equitable relief.
18
19 THE PARTIES
20 3. Defendant WDC Exploration & Wells. ("WDC" or "DEFENDANT") was
21 founded in 1949 and is based and headquartered in Woodland, California. At all relevant
22 times mentioned herein, WDC conducted and continues to conduct substantial and regular
23 business throughout California.
24 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
25 partnership, associate or otherwise of defendant Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are presently
26 unknown to the PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names
27 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this
28 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-2-
 1 they are ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information
2 and belief alleges, that the defendants named in this Complaint, including Does 1 through
3 50, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings
4 that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
5 5. The agents, servants, and/or employees of the DEFENDANT and each of them
6 acting on behalf of the DEFENDANT acted within the course and scope of his, her or its
7 authority as the agent, servant, and/or employee of the DEFENDANT, and personally
8 participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of the DEFENDANT with respect to the
9 conduct alleged herein. Consequently, DEFENDANT is jointly and severally liable to the
10 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate
11 result of the conduct of the DEFENDANT’s agents, servants, and/or employees.
12 6. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Robi Day ("PLAINTIFF")
13 resided in California. PLAINTIFF has been employed by WDC in California as a "Drilling
14 Helper" since April 2006 and currently works in that position for DEFENDANT. At all
15 relevant times mentioned herein, PLAINTIFF primarily performed the job duty of providing
16 drilling services.
17
18 THE CLASS & CONDUCT
19 7. PLAINTIFF brings this Action against WDC pursuant to California Code
20 of Civil Procedure, Section 382, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class consisting of
21 all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for WDC as a Driller in California during
22 the CLASS PERIOD ("CLASS" or "Class Members"). The applicable "CLASS PERIOD"
23 is defined as the period beginning on the date four (4) years prior to the filing of this
24 Complaint and ending on a date as determined by the Court.
25 8. During the CLASS PERIOD, WDC systematically failed to pay the
26 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for compensable travel time which was spent
27 commuting to and from work sites in company vehicles. WDC’s uniform policy and
28 practice was to require the Drillers to use company vehicles to commute to and from

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-3-
 1 assigned work sites and forbid them from driving personal vehicles to report to work. As a
2 result, these employees were subject to DEFENDANT’s control while traveling to and from
3 their assigned work sites. WDC further required these employees to perform work out-of-
4 town whereby these employees regularly traveled a substantial distance from the assigned
5 work site to a distant work site location to report to work on a short-term basis.
6 Consequently, these employees were required to travel in addition to their regular working
7 hours because such travel was done pursuant to DEFENDANT’s instructions. As a result,
8 time spent traveling to and from out-of-town work site locations can only be characterized as
9 time spent subject to DEFENDANT’s control. WDC also engaged in a common course of
10 failing to reimburse these employees for all necessary expenses incurred in connection with
11 DEFENDANT’s required travel. During the CLASS PERIOD, WDC also had in place a
12 mutable timekeeping system which failed to accurately record and pay the PLAINTIFF and
13 the Class Members for the actual number of hours worked. As a result, the PLAINTIFF and
14 the Class Members regularly traveled to and from work sites without receiving
15 compensation for such compelled travel time for DEFENDANT’s benefit in accordance with
16 DEFENDANT’s strict, corporate and uniform guidelines.
17 9. Throughout the CLASS PERIOD, in violation of the applicable sections of the
18 California Labor Code and the requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
19 Wage Order, WDC as a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure, intentionally,
20 knowingly and systematically failed to properly compensate the PLAINTIFF and the Class
21 Members for all hours worked, by failing to pay the Class Members for time worked
22 traveling to and from assigned work sites in company vehicles. WDC ensured that
23 employees traveled in their company vehicles by requiring employees to report to a central
24 location to drop off and pick up their personal cars in route to and from their homes. In
25 addition, WDC required these employees to perform work out-of-town which involved
26 traveling a substantial distance from the assigned work site to a distant work site location to
27 report to work on a short-term basis. These uniform policies and systematic practices of
28 WDC were intended to purposefully avoid the payment of wages required by California law

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-4-
 1 which allows WDC to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors. To the
2 extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CLASS against WDC, the CLASS
3 PERIOD should be adjusted accordingly.
4 10. All non-exempt, hourly employees working for WDC as a Driller in California
5 are similarly situated in that they are all subject to WDC’s uniform policy and systematic
6 practice that requires them to perform work without compensation as required by law.
7 11. WDC has a uniform policy and practice in California of requiring employees
8 to travel to and from alternative work sites without compensation. This systematic and
9 company-wide policy originating at the corporate level is the cause of the illegal pay practices
10 as described herein. Throughout the CLASS PERIOD, WDC failed to pay the PLAINTIFF and
11 the Class Members for all hours worked with respect to compensable travel time which the
12 employees spent commuting to and from work sites and traveling out-of-town as part of their
13 principal job duties. WDC’s business demands that the Class Members travel during their
14 regular working hours and in addition to their regular working hours pursuant to
15 DEFENDANT’s instructions, but fail to compensate the Class Members for this compulsory
16 travel time at their regular rate of pay and at the overtime rate of time and a half when
17 applicable. In addition, WDC failed to reimburse these employees for all necessary expenses
18 incurred in connection with DEFENDANT’s required travel.
19 12. During the CLASS PERIOD, WDC uniformly violated the rights of the
20 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members under California law, without limitation, in the following
21 manners:
22 (a) Violating California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010(7) and
23 11040(7) by failing compensate the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members
24 for all hours worked, including straight time, reporting time and overtime;
25 (b) Violating California Labor Code Sections 204, 510 and 1198, by failing
26 to pay premium wages for hours worked in excess eight (8) in any
27 workday and forty (40) in any workweek;
28 (c) Violating California Labor Code Section 2802, by failing to provide the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-5-
 1 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members with reimbursement of expenses
2 incurred in connection with employer required travel;
3 (d) Violating California Labor Code Section 226, by failing to provide the
4 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members with accurate itemized wage
5 statements;
6 (e) Violating California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202, by failing to
7 tender full payment and/or restitution of wages owed to the employees
8 whose employment with DEFENDANT has terminated; and,
9 (f) Violating Business & Processions Code Section 17200, et seq., by
10 committing acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Labor
11 Code and public policy, by failing to pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class
12 Members wages for all hours of worked, including hours worked traveling
13 to and from alternative work sites.
14 13. As a result of WDC’s uniform policies, practices and procedures, there are
15 numerous questions of law and fact common to all Class Members who worked for WDC in
16 California during the CLASS PERIOD. These questions include, but are not limited to, the
17 following:
18 (a) Whether WDC’s policies, practices and pattern of conduct described in
19 this Complaint was and is unlawful;
20 (b) Whether WDC failed to accurately pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class
21 Members for all hours worked, including straight time, reporting time and
22 overtime;
23 (c) Whether WDC failed to consider travel time as “hours worked” without
24 compensation;
25 (d) Whether WDC failed to maintain true and accurate time records for all
26 hours worked by its Drillers;
27 (e) Whether WDC failed to indemnify its Drillers for all necessary expenses
28 incurred in connection with WDC’s required travel;

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-6-
 1 (f) Whether WDC failed to provide employees with accurate itemized wage
2 statements;
3 (g) Whether WDC’s compensatory time policy and practice complies with the
4 requirements of Labor Code §204.3;
5 (h) Whether WDC has engaged in unfair competition by the above-listed
6 conduct; and,
7 (i) Whether WDC’s conduct was willful.
8 14. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a Class
9 Action as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382, in that:
10 (a) The persons who comprise the CLASS are so numerous that the joinder
11 of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition of their claims as
12 a class will benefit the parties and the Court;
13 (b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief issues
14 that are raised in this Complaint are common to the CLASS and will apply
15 uniformly to every member of the CLASS;
16 (c) The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims of
17 each member of the CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all other Class Members,
18 was not correctly compensated for all hours worked, including off the
19 clock hours and overtime hours incurred in the discharge of his duties
20 because of WDC’s company policies and practices. PLAINTIFF
21 sustained economic injuries arising from WDC’s violations of the laws of
22 California. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are similarly or
23 identically harmed by the same unfair, deceptive, unlawful and pervasive
24 pattern of misconduct engaged in by WDC; and,
25 (d) The representative PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and
26 protect the interest of the CLASS, and has retained counsel who are
27 competent and experienced in Class Action litigation. There are no
28 material conflicts between the claims of the representative PLAINTIFF

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-7-
 1 and the Class Members that would make class certification inappropriate.
2 Counsel for the CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all Class
3 Members.
4 15. In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this Action
5 is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
6 Section 382, in that:
7 (a) Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive,
8 statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution of
9 separate actions by individual members of the CLASS will create the risk
10 of:
11 (i) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual
12 members of the CLASS which would establish incompatible
13 standards of conduct for the parties opposing the CLASS; or,
14 (ii) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CLASS
15 which would as a practical matter be dispositive of interests of the
16 other members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair
17 or impede their ability to protect their interests;
18 (b) The parties opposing the CLASS have acted on grounds generally
19 applicable to the CLASS, making appropriate class-wide relief with
20 respect to the CLASS as a whole in that WDC’s company policies and
21 practices failed to compensate employees for all hours worked, and failed
22 to properly apply the overtime rate of pay applicable to all hours worked
23 in excess of eight (8) in any workday and forty (40) in any workweek;
24 and,
25 (c) Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Class Members and
26 predominate over any question affecting only individual members, and
27 Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
28 efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-8-
 1 (i) The interests of the members of the CLASS in individually
2 controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
3 (ii) The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy
4 already commenced by or against members of the CLASS;
5 (iii) The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of
6 the claims in the particular forum;
7 (iv) The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a
8 Class Action; and,
9 (v) The basis of WDC’s policies and practices uniformly applied to all
10 Class Members.
11 16. This Court should permit this Action to be maintained as a Class Action pursuant
12 to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382, because:
13 (a) The questions of law and fact common to the CLASS predominate over
14 any question affecting only individual members;
15 (b) A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair and
16 efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the CLASS;
17 (c) The Class Members are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all
18 Class Members before the Court;
19 (d) PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, will not be able to obtain effective
20 and economic legal redress unless the Action is maintained as a Class
21 Action;
22 (e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and
23 equitable relief for the common law and statutory violations and other
24 improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages
25 and injuries which WDC’s actions have inflicted upon the CLASS;
26 (f) There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets and
27 available insurance of WDC are sufficient to adequately compensate the
28 members of the CLASS for any injuries sustained;

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-9-
 1 (g) WDC has acted or has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
2 the CLASS, thereby making final class-wide relief appropriate with
3 respect to the CLASS as a whole; and,
4 (h) The Class Members are readily ascertainable from the business records of
5 WDC. The CLASS consists of all of WDC’s non-exempt, hourly
6 employees who were subject to the above described uniform policies and
7 practices in California during the applicable time period.
8
9 JURISDICTION & VENUE
10 17. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to the California Code of
11 Civil Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section
12 17203. This Action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of similarly situated employees
13 of WDC Exploration & Wells pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382.
14 18. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
15 Sections 395 and 395.5, because WDC (i) currently maintains and at all relevant times
16 maintained offices and facilities in this County and/or conducts substantial business in this
17 County, and (ii) committed the wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against
18 members of the CLASS.
19
20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21 For Unlawful, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices
22 [Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.]
23 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
24 19. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
25 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint.
26 20. DEFENDANT is a "persons" as that term is defined under the California
27 Business & Professions Code, Section 17021.
28 21. Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code defines unfair

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-10-
 1 competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17200
2 applies to violations of labor laws in the employment context. Section 17203 authorizes
3 injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition as
4 follows:
5 Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair
competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court
6 may make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as
may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice
7 which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be
necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or
8 personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.
9 22. By the conduct alleged herein, WDC’s uniform policies and practices
10 violated and continue to violate California law, and specifically provisions of the Wage Orders,
11 the California Labor Code, including Sections 201, 202, 204, 204.3, 206.5, 210, 510 and 1198,
12 and the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 11010 and 11040, for which this Court
13 should issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the California
14 Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
15 23. By the conduct alleged herein, WDC’s practices were unfair in that these
16 practices violate public policy, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially
17 injurious to employees, and are without valid justification or utility, for which this Court should
18 issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the California Business &
19 Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
20 24. By the conduct alleged herein, WDC’s practices were deceptive and fraudulent
21 in that WDC’s uniform practice was to represent to its employees that they were not entitled to
22 compensation for all hours worked, when in fact these representations were false and likely to
23 deceive, for which this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section
24 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code, including restitution of wages
25 wrongfully withheld.
26 25. By and through the unfair and unlawful business practices described herein,
27 WDC has obtained valuable property, money, and services from the PLAINTIFF and from the
28 Class Members, including earned wages for hours worked, and has deprived them of valuable

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-11-
 1 rights and benefits guaranteed by law and contract, all to the detriment of the employees and
2 to the benefit of DEFENDANT so as to allow DEFENDANT to unfairly compete against
3 competitors who comply with the law.
4 26. All the acts described herein as violations of, among other things, the California
5 Labor Code, California Code of Regulations, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
6 Orders, are unlawful and in violation of public policy; and are immoral, unethical, oppressive,
7 and unscrupulous, are deceptive, and thereby constitute unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
8 practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, Sections 17200 et seq.
9 DEFENDANT’s conduct was also deceptive in that DEFENDANT represented to the
10 PLAINTIFF and the others members of the CLASS that they were not entitled to receive
11 compensation for all hours worked, including wages for hours worked traveling to and from
12 assigned work sites in company vehicles, traveling out-of-town to report to work, and for
13 expenses incurred in connection with DEFENDANT’s required travel.
14 27. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, are entitled to, and do, seek such relief as
15 may be necessary to restore to them the money and property which DEFENDANT has acquired,
16 or of which the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have been deprived, by means of the
17 above described unlawful and unfair business practices, including earned but unpaid wages for
18 hours worked.
19 28. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, are further entitled to, and do, seek a
20 declaration that the above described business practices are unfair and unlawful and that an
21 injunctive relief should be issued restraining WDC from engaging in any of these unfair and
22 unlawful business practices in the future.
23 29. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have no plain, speedy, and/or adequate
24 remedy at law that will end the unfair and unlawful business practices of WDC. Further, the
25 practices herein alleged presently continue to occur unabated. As a result of the unfair and
26 unlawful business practices described herein, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have
27 suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless WDC is restrained from continuing
28 to engage in these unfair and unlawful business practices. In addition, compensation to the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-12-
 1 PLAINTIFF as well as to the other members of the CLASS.
2
3
4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
5 For Failure To Pay Overtime Wages
6 [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 204.3 210, 218, 510, 1194 & 1198]
7 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
8 30. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
9 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Complaint.
10 31. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, bring a claim for DEFENDANT’s willful
11 and intentional violations of the California Labor Code, Sections 201, 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 510,
12 515, 558, 1198, and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010 and 11040 for
13 DEFENDANT’s failure to correctly pay them for all the overtime hours they worked, including
14 hours worked traveling to and from assigned work sites in company vehicles and hours worked
15 traveling to and from out-of-town work site locations.
16 32. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 204, other applicable laws and
17 regulations, and public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all hours worked.
18 Labor Code Section 201 and 202 require DEFENDANT to pay all wages due to an employee
19 whose employment terminated.
20 33. California Labor Code Section 510 further provides that employees in California
21 shall not be employed more than eight (8) hours per workday and forty (40) hours per
22 workweek unless they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts
23 specified by law.
24 34. California Labor Code Section 1194 establishes an employee's right to recover
25 unpaid overtime compensation and interest thereon, together with the costs of suit. Section
26 1198 of the California Labor Code states that the employment of an employee for longer hours
27 than those fixed by the Industrial Welfare Commission is unlawful.
28 35. During the CLASS PERIOD, WDC maintained a uniform wage practice

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-13-
 1 of paying the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, without regard to the number of hours they
2 actually worked. As set forth herein, DEFENDANT’s policy and practice was to intentionally
3 and uniformly deny timely payment of overtime wages due for the actual hours worked by the
4 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members, and WDC in fact failed to correctly pay these employees
5 for all hours worked, including hours worked traveling to and from assigned work sites in
6 company vehicles.
7 36. WDC's uniform pattern of unlawful wage and hour practices manifested,
8 without limitation, applicable to the CLASS as a whole by implementing a uniform policy and
9 systematic practice that denied overtime compensation to the Class Members, including the
10 PLAINTIFF, for all the overtime hours they worked, including time worked traveling to and
11 from assigned work sites in company vehicles.
12 37. In committing these violations of the California Labor Code, WDC
13 inaccurately under-reported the actual time worked and WDC underpaid the actual amount of
14 hours worked, in violation of California Labor Code Section 206.5. WDC acted in an illegal
15 attempt to avoid payment of earned overtime compensation and other benefits in violation of
16 the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission requirements, and other
17 applicable laws and regulations.
18 38. As a direct result of WDC’s unlawful wage practices as alleged herein, the
19 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members did not receive overtime compensation for all the overtime
20 hours they actually worked subject to WDC’s control and for WDC’s benefit.
21 39. California Labor Code Section 515 sets out various categories of employees who
22 are exempt from the overtime requirements of the law. None of these exemptions are applicable
23 to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and
24 the Class Members, were classified by DEFENDANT as non-exempt from overtime and
25 performed non-exempt job duties.
26 40. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were
27 classified as non-exempt from overtime by WDC. None of the exemptions are applicable to the
28 CLASS based on their job duties. Further, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are not

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-14-
 1 subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement that would preclude the causes of action

2 contained herein this Complaint. Rather, the PLAINTIFF brings this Action on behalf of

3 himself and the members of the CLASS based on DEFENDANT’s violations of non-negotiable,

4 non-waiveable rights provided by the state of California.

5 41. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members worked

6 more hours than they were paid for and/or were paid less for hours worked that they were

7 entitled to, constituting a failure to pay all earned overtime wages. During the CLASS PERIOD,

8 the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, regularly worked hours traveling to and from work

9 site locations to report to work.

10 42. DEFENDANT failed to accurately pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members

11 wages for all the hours they actually worked, including hours in excess of the maximum hours

12 permissible by law as required by the California Labor Code, Sections 204, 510 and 1198, even

13 though the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were regularly required to work, and did in fact

14 work, hours that WDC never recorded, as evidenced by WDC’s business records and witnessed

15 by employees.

16 43. By virtue of DEFENDANT's unlawful failure to pay overtime compensation to

17 the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members accurately for the true number of hours they worked,

18 the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer an economic

19 injury in amounts which are presently unknown to them and which will be ascertained

20 according to proof at trial.

21 44. During the CLASS PERIOD, WDC knew or should have known that the

22 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members worked overtime hours that they were not compensated

23 for, including hours in excess of eight (8) in any workday and forty (40) in any workweek.

24 WDC systematically elected, either through intentional malfeasance or gross nonfeasance, not

25 to pay employees the correct overtime amount for their labor as a matter of uniform corporate

26 policy, practice and procedure, and to perpetrate this systematic scheme, WDC refused to pay

27 employees for compensable travel time.

28 45. In performing the acts and practices herein alleged in violation of labor laws and

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-15-
 1 refusing to compensate the Class Members for all the hours they worked and provide the

2 requisite overtime compensation, WDC acted and continues to act intentionally, oppressively,

3 and maliciously toward the PLAINTIFF, and toward the Class Members, with a conscious of

4 and utter disregard for their legal rights, or the consequences to them, and with the despicable

5 intent of depriving them of their property and legal rights, and otherwise causing them injury

6 in order to increase corporate profits at the expense of the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members.

7 46. WDC’s respective failure to accurately record the hours worked by the CLASS

8 and pay the proper amount of overtime compensation to the PLAINTIFF and the Class

9 Members violates IWC Wage Orders No. 1 and 4 and the California Labor Code, Sections 201,

10 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 218, 510, 1194 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful.

11 47. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, request recovery of unpaid

12 overtime compensation according to proof, interest, statutory costs, as well as the assessment

13 of any statutory penalties against DEFENDANT, in a sum as provided by the California Labor

14 Code and/or other applicable statutes. In addition, to the extent wages are determined to be

15 owed to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members whose employment has terminated, these

16 employees are further entitled to waiting time penalties under Section 203 of the California

17 Labor Code, which are sought herein.

18
19 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

20 For Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements

21 [Cal. Lab. Code § 226]

22 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)

23 48. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,

24 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 47 of this Complaint.

25 49. Pursuant to the California Labor Code, Section 226, an employer must furnish

26 employees with an "accurate itemized statement in writing" showing all of the following items:

27 (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose

28 compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-16-
 1 subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission,

2 (3) the number of piecerate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid

3 on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of

4 the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive

5 dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her

6 social security number, except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of his or her

7 social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number

8 may be shown on the itemized statement, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the

9 employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the

10 corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. See California

11 Labor Code § 226.

12 50. At all relevant times mentioned herein, WDC violated California Labor

13 Code Section 226 with respect to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members, without limitation,

14 in that WDC inaccurately or completely failed to record and report all the hours they actually

15 worked on their pay stubs, including regular and overtime hours worked, as well as their gross

16 wages earned.

17 51. This failure was the result of WDC’s intentional refusal to compensate the

18 employees for all hours worked, including hours worked traveling to and from assigned work

19 sites subject to DEFENDANT’s control, and this miscalculation of the applicable regular rate

20 as herein alleged.

21 52. WDC knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with California Labor Code

22 Section 226, causing damages to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. These damages

23 include, but are not limited to, unpaid wages for all hours actually worked, the costs expended

24 calculating the true hours worked and the amount of employment taxes which were not properly

25 paid to state and federal tax authorities. These damages may be difficult to estimate. Therefore,

26 the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, may recover liquidated damages of $50.00 for the

27 initial pay period in which the violation occurred, and $100.00 for each violation in subsequent

28 pay period pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226, in an amount according to proof at

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-17-
 1 the time of trial (but in no event more than $4,000.00 for the PLAINTIFF and each respective
2 member of the CLASS herein), plus statutory costs, pursuant to California Labor Code Section
3 226(g).
4
5 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 For Failure to Reimburse Employees for Necessary Expenses
7 [Cal. Lab. Code § 2802]
8 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
9 53. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference, as
10 though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 52 of this Complaint.
11 54. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 provides, in relevant part, that:
12 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
13 duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though
unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to
14 be unlawful.
15 55. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANT violated Cal. Lab. Code § 2802, by
16 failing to indemnify and reimburse the PLAINTIFF, and all the Class Members for all expenses
17 incurred in connection with DEFENDANT’s required travel. In particular, DEFENDANT failed to
18 reimburse the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for expenses incurred while traveling out-of-town
19 to and from alternative work site locations. It was WDC’s uniform policy and practice to provide each
20 Class Member with an allowance to spend while traveling out-of-town. However, because
21 DEFENDANT required these employees to travel a substantial distance from the assigned work site
22 to a distant work site location to report to work, the employees regularly incurred additional expenses
23 that the allowance did not cover because the employees were traveling in addition to their regular
24 working hours. DEFENDANT is estopped by DEFENDANT’s conduct to assert any waiver of this
25 expectation. Although these expenses were necessary expenditures incurred by the PLAINTIFF and
26 the Class Members, DEFENDANT failed to indemnify and reimburse the PLAINTIFF and the Class
27 Members for these expenses as an employer is required to do under the laws and regulations of
28 California.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-18-
 1 56. Thus, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were forced by the expectation of
2 DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT’s unwritten policy to contribute to the expenses of the
3 DEFENDANT’s business, which expenses must be refunded by DEFENDANT to each member of the
4 CLASS.
5 57. Cal. Lab. Code § 2802(b) and (c) provide for interest at the statutory post judgment
6 rate of 10% simple interest per annum from the date of the expenditure plus attorneys’ fees to collect
7 reimbursement.
8 58. PLAINTIFF, therefore, demands reimbursement for expenditures or losses incurred
9 by him and the Class Members in connection with DEFENDANT’s required travel, or their obedience
10 to the directions of the DEFENDANT with interest at the statutory rate and costs under Cal. Labor
11 Code § 2802.
12
13 PRAYER
14 WHEREFOR, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against each Defendant, jointly and
15 severally, as follows:
16 1. On behalf of the CLASS:
17 A) That the Court certify the Action asserted by the CLASS as a Class Action
18 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382;
19 B) An order temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining
20 DEFENDANT from engaging in similar unlawful conduct as set forth herein;
21 C) An order requiring DEFENDANT to pay all sums unlawfully withheld from
22 the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CLASS;
23 D) Disgorgement of DEFENDANT’s ill-gotten gains into a fluid fund for
24 restitution of the sums incidental to DEFENDANT’s violations due to the
25 PLAINTIFF and to the Class Members;
26 E) Penalties payable to all terminated employees in the CLASS in accordance
27 with Cal. Lab. Code § 203; and,
28 F) The greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-19-