1st Amended Complaint (transaction Id # 15204021) Filed By Plaintiff Taranto, Barry , Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated As To Defendant Washio, Inc.
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 10
LL
12
13
14
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
26
27
28
SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice anticipated
(sliss@llrlaw,com)
ADELAIDE PAGANO, pro hac vice anticipated
(bweber@llrlaw.com)
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile; (617) 994-5801
MATTHEW CARLSON (SBN 273242)
(mearlson@carlsonlegalservices.com)
Carlson Legal Services
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 817-1470
ELECTRONICALLY
FILE
Superior Court of C
ffomia,
County of San Francisco
07/24/20
1S
Clerk of the Court
BY-DAVID YUEN
Depuly
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BARRY TARANTO, individually and on Case No. CGC 15-546584
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Vv. 1
WASHIO, INC.,
Defendant. 2,
1
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE FOR
BUSINESS EXPENSES IN
VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
$2802
UNLAWEUL AND/OR UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. BUS.
& PROF. CODE §§17200-17208)
. PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ACT (CAL. LAB. CODE § 2699)
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
ClerkPage 2 10
11
i2
13
14
15
{6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This case is brought on behalf of individuals who have worked as Washio drivers.
Washio is a laundry service that provides dry cleaning and wash and fold delivery service
through a mobile phone application,
2. Plaintiff brings this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of other similarly
situated Washio drivers (referred to by the company as “Ninjas”), who have been misclassified
as independent contractors and thereby required to pay business expenses (such as for their
vehicles, gas, and maintenance) in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802.
li, PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Barry Taranto is an adult resident of San Francisco, California, where he
has worked as a Washio driver,
4, Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, namely all other individuals who have worked as Washio drivers across the United
States.
5. Defendant Washio, Inc. (“Washio”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Santa Monica, California.
I. JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and class members’ claims for failure
to reimburse for business expenses under Labor Code § 2802, enforceable pursuant to Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code § 17200, ef seq.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
7. Washio provides a laundry service that offers dry cleaning and wash and fold
delivery service through a mobile phone application in cilies across the country, including Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and Washington DC.
2
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 3 10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. Washio offers customers the ability to schedule a pick-up and delivery of their
laundry on a mobile phone application.
9, Washio’s website advertises: “Better. Faster. Cleaner. Premium Dry Cleaning and
Laundry Delivery.”
10, Washio delivery drivers receive a fee for each pick-up or delivery of clothing they
make during their assigned shifts, They are not paid an hourly wage.
11. Although classified as independent contractors, Washio drivers are employees.
They are required to follow a litany of requirements imposed on them by Washio, and are subject
to termination based on their failure to adhere to these requirements (such as rules regarding how
they store clothes in their vehicles, their timeliness in picking up and dropping off clothing, how
they interact with customers, etc.).
12, Washio may also terminate drivers in its discretion for any reason.
13, In addition, Washio is in the business of providing laundry delivery service to
customers, and that is the service that Washio delivery drivers or “Ninjas,” provide. The drivers’
services are fully integrated into Washio’s business, and without the drivers to pick up and
deliver laundry, Washio’s laundry delivery business would not exist.
14. As part of their contract, Washio drivers agree to an exclusivity arrangement, in
which they agree not to provide services for any similar business.
15. Based on their misclassification as independent contractors, Washio drivers are
required to bear many of the expenses of their employment, including expenses for their
vehicles, gas, parking, and other expenses. California law requires employers to reimburse
employees for such expenses, which are for the benefit of the employer and are necessary for the
employees to perform their jobs.
16. | Washio requires all its drivers to agree to a contract as a condition of
employment, which states that the “Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
3
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 4 10
1]
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
a4
25
26
27
28
with the internal laws of the State of California without giving effect to any choice or conflict of
law provision or rule (whether of the State of California or any other jurisdiction) that would
cause the application of laws of any jurisdictions other than those of the State of California.”
Thus, California law applies to the drivers’ challenge to their classification as independent
contractors under their contract with Washio.
Vv. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
17. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure § 382, on behalf of Washio drivers across the United States.
18. Plaintiff and other class members have uniformly been misclassified as
independent contractors.
19, The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of ali class members is
impracticable.
20. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the class who have
been misclassified as independent contractors. Among the questions of law and fact that are
common to these drivers are:
a. Whether class members have been required to follow uniform procedures and
policies regarding their work for Washio;
b. Whether the work performed by class members—providing laundry delivery
service to customers—is within Washio’s usual course of business, and whether
such service is fully integrated into Washio’s business;
c. Whether these class members have been required to bear the expenses of their
employment, such as expenses for their vehicles, gas, and other expenses.
21. The named plaintiff is a member of the class, who suffered damages as a result of
Defendant’s conduct and actions alleged herein.
22. The named plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the class, and the named
4
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 5 10
It
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
plaintiff has the same interests as the other members of the class.
23, The named plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests
of the class. The named plaintiff has retained able counsel experienced in class action litigation,
The interests of the named plaintiff are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of
the other class members.
24, — The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual issues relating
to liability and damages.
25, Aclass action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members is impractical. Moreover,
since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the
expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of
the class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. The class is readily definable and
prosecution of this action as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation.
There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
VI. PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTIGN ALLEGATIONS
26, On June 10, 201 5, Plaintiffs gave written notice of Washio’s violations of various
provisions of the California Labor Code as alleged in this complaint to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency (““LWDA”) and Washio.
27. More than thirty-three days have lapsed since the LWDA was notified of the
Labor Code violations asserted in this Complaint, and the LWDA has not provided any notice
that it will or will not investigate the alleged violations. See Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3 (a}(2)(A).
28, —- Plaintiff alleges that Washio vielated PAGA in the following ways: (1) failure to
reimburse delivery driver employees for all necessary expenditures incurred in performing their
5
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 6 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
duties, including but not limited to fuel, car maintenance, phones, and data, in violation of Labor
Code § 2802, and (2) failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of § 226(a).
COUNT I
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802
29, Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying Washio delivery drivers,
or “Ninjas”, as independent contractors, and failing to reimburse them for expenses they paid
that should have been borne by their employer, constitutes a violation of California Labor Code
Section 2802.
COUNT Hl
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.
30. Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, violates the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus, & Prof. Code § 17200 et seg. CUCL”). Defendant’s conduct
constitutes unlawful business acts or practices, in that Defendant has violated California Labor
Code Section 2802. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and class members
suffered injury in fact and lost money and property, including, but not limited to business
expenses that drivers were required to pay. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
§ 17203, Plaintiffs and class members seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendant’s
unlawful conduct and to recover restitution. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §
1021.5, Plaintiffs and class members who worked for Washio are entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in bringing this action.
COUNT Vil
Penalties Pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(Representative Action)
31. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. Plaintiffs are aggrieved employees as defined by Cal. Lab.
Code § 2699(c) as they were employed by Washio during the applicable statutory period and
6
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 7 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
suffered injury as a result of Washio’s Labor Code violations. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to
recover on behalf of themselves and all other current and former aggrieved employees of
Washio, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
32. | Washio drivers are entitled to penalties for Washio’s violations of Cal. Lab. Code
§§ 2802 and 226(a) as set forth by Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(f). Plaintiffs seek civil penalties
pursuant to PAGA for (1) failure to reimburse delivery driver employees for all necessary
expenditures incurred in performing their duties, including but not limited to fuel, car
maintenance, parking, phones, and data, in violation of Labor Code § 2802, and (2) failure to
provide itemized wage statements in violation of § 226(a).
33. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(f) provides for civil penalties for violation of all Labor
Code provisions for which no civil penalty is specifically provided. There is no specified civil
penalty for violations of Cal. Lab, Code § 2802. With respect to violations of Labor Code §
226(a), Labor Code § 226.3 imposes a civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by
law of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per aggrieved employee for the first violation, and one
thousand dollars ($1,000) per aggrieved employee for each subsequent violation of Labor Code §
226(a).
34. Plaintiffs complied with the notice requirement of Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3 and
mailed a written notice to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”),
and Defendant via Certified Mail, return receipt requested, on June 10, 2015, It has been 33
days or more since the LWDA was notified of the Laber Code violations asserted in this
Complaint, and the LWDA has not provided any notice that it will or will not investigate the
alleged violations.
7
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 8 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a trial by jury on all their claims.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court certify this case as a national class
action (applying California law), pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 382; award reimbursement for all expenses that drivers who were misclassified as
independent contractors were required to bear; award pre- and post-judgment interest;
award reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; and award any other relief to
which the plaintiffs may be entitled.
§
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 9 10
11
12 |
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
26
27
28
Dated:
July 24, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
BARRY TARANTO, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
By their attorneys,
Lh A
Shannon Liss- i an, pro Liu Yael
Adelaide Pagano, pro hac vice anticipated
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 994-5800
Email: sliss@ilrlaw.com, apagano@llrlaw.com
Welw weboornteo
Matthew Carlson, SBN 273242
CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 817-1470
Email: mearlson@carlsonlegalservices.com
9
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
10
LL
12
13
14
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
26
27
28
SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice anticipated
(sliss@llrlaw,com)
ADELAIDE PAGANO, pro hac vice anticipated
(bweber@llrlaw.com)
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile; (617) 994-5801
MATTHEW CARLSON (SBN 273242)
(mearlson@carlsonlegalservices.com)
Carlson Legal Services
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 817-1470
ELECTRONICALLY
FILE
Superior Court of C
ffomia,
County of San Francisco
07/24/20
1S
Clerk of the Court
BY-DAVID YUEN
Depuly
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BARRY TARANTO, individually and on Case No. CGC 15-546584
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Vv. 1
WASHIO, INC.,
Defendant. 2,
1
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE FOR
BUSINESS EXPENSES IN
VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
$2802
UNLAWEUL AND/OR UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. BUS.
& PROF. CODE §§17200-17208)
. PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ACT (CAL. LAB. CODE § 2699)
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Clerk
PDF Page 3
10
11
i2
13
14
15
{6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This case is brought on behalf of individuals who have worked as Washio drivers.
Washio is a laundry service that provides dry cleaning and wash and fold delivery service
through a mobile phone application,
2. Plaintiff brings this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of other similarly
situated Washio drivers (referred to by the company as “Ninjas”), who have been misclassified
as independent contractors and thereby required to pay business expenses (such as for their
vehicles, gas, and maintenance) in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802.
li, PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Barry Taranto is an adult resident of San Francisco, California, where he
has worked as a Washio driver,
4, Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, namely all other individuals who have worked as Washio drivers across the United
States.
5. Defendant Washio, Inc. (“Washio”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Santa Monica, California.
I. JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and class members’ claims for failure
to reimburse for business expenses under Labor Code § 2802, enforceable pursuant to Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code § 17200, ef seq.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
7. Washio provides a laundry service that offers dry cleaning and wash and fold
delivery service through a mobile phone application in cilies across the country, including Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and Washington DC.
2
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 4
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. Washio offers customers the ability to schedule a pick-up and delivery of their
laundry on a mobile phone application.
9, Washio’s website advertises: “Better. Faster. Cleaner. Premium Dry Cleaning and
Laundry Delivery.”
10, Washio delivery drivers receive a fee for each pick-up or delivery of clothing they
make during their assigned shifts, They are not paid an hourly wage.
11. Although classified as independent contractors, Washio drivers are employees.
They are required to follow a litany of requirements imposed on them by Washio, and are subject
to termination based on their failure to adhere to these requirements (such as rules regarding how
they store clothes in their vehicles, their timeliness in picking up and dropping off clothing, how
they interact with customers, etc.).
12, Washio may also terminate drivers in its discretion for any reason.
13, In addition, Washio is in the business of providing laundry delivery service to
customers, and that is the service that Washio delivery drivers or “Ninjas,” provide. The drivers’
services are fully integrated into Washio’s business, and without the drivers to pick up and
deliver laundry, Washio’s laundry delivery business would not exist.
14. As part of their contract, Washio drivers agree to an exclusivity arrangement, in
which they agree not to provide services for any similar business.
15. Based on their misclassification as independent contractors, Washio drivers are
required to bear many of the expenses of their employment, including expenses for their
vehicles, gas, parking, and other expenses. California law requires employers to reimburse
employees for such expenses, which are for the benefit of the employer and are necessary for the
employees to perform their jobs.
16. | Washio requires all its drivers to agree to a contract as a condition of
employment, which states that the “Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
3
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 5
10
1]
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
a4
25
26
27
28
with the internal laws of the State of California without giving effect to any choice or conflict of
law provision or rule (whether of the State of California or any other jurisdiction) that would
cause the application of laws of any jurisdictions other than those of the State of California.”
Thus, California law applies to the drivers’ challenge to their classification as independent
contractors under their contract with Washio.
Vv. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
17. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure § 382, on behalf of Washio drivers across the United States.
18. Plaintiff and other class members have uniformly been misclassified as
independent contractors.
19, The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of ali class members is
impracticable.
20. Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the class who have
been misclassified as independent contractors. Among the questions of law and fact that are
common to these drivers are:
a. Whether class members have been required to follow uniform procedures and
policies regarding their work for Washio;
b. Whether the work performed by class members—providing laundry delivery
service to customers—is within Washio’s usual course of business, and whether
such service is fully integrated into Washio’s business;
c. Whether these class members have been required to bear the expenses of their
employment, such as expenses for their vehicles, gas, and other expenses.
21. The named plaintiff is a member of the class, who suffered damages as a result of
Defendant’s conduct and actions alleged herein.
22. The named plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the class, and the named
4
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 6
10
It
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
plaintiff has the same interests as the other members of the class.
23, The named plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests
of the class. The named plaintiff has retained able counsel experienced in class action litigation,
The interests of the named plaintiff are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of
the other class members.
24, — The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual issues relating
to liability and damages.
25, Aclass action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members is impractical. Moreover,
since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the
expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of
the class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. The class is readily definable and
prosecution of this action as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation.
There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
VI. PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTIGN ALLEGATIONS
26, On June 10, 201 5, Plaintiffs gave written notice of Washio’s violations of various
provisions of the California Labor Code as alleged in this complaint to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency (““LWDA”) and Washio.
27. More than thirty-three days have lapsed since the LWDA was notified of the
Labor Code violations asserted in this Complaint, and the LWDA has not provided any notice
that it will or will not investigate the alleged violations. See Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3 (a}(2)(A).
28, —- Plaintiff alleges that Washio vielated PAGA in the following ways: (1) failure to
reimburse delivery driver employees for all necessary expenditures incurred in performing their
5
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 7
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
duties, including but not limited to fuel, car maintenance, phones, and data, in violation of Labor
Code § 2802, and (2) failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of § 226(a).
COUNT I
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802
29, Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying Washio delivery drivers,
or “Ninjas”, as independent contractors, and failing to reimburse them for expenses they paid
that should have been borne by their employer, constitutes a violation of California Labor Code
Section 2802.
COUNT Hl
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.
30. Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, violates the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus, & Prof. Code § 17200 et seg. CUCL”). Defendant’s conduct
constitutes unlawful business acts or practices, in that Defendant has violated California Labor
Code Section 2802. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and class members
suffered injury in fact and lost money and property, including, but not limited to business
expenses that drivers were required to pay. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
§ 17203, Plaintiffs and class members seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendant’s
unlawful conduct and to recover restitution. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §
1021.5, Plaintiffs and class members who worked for Washio are entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in bringing this action.
COUNT Vil
Penalties Pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(Representative Action)
31. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. Plaintiffs are aggrieved employees as defined by Cal. Lab.
Code § 2699(c) as they were employed by Washio during the applicable statutory period and
6
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
suffered injury as a result of Washio’s Labor Code violations. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to
recover on behalf of themselves and all other current and former aggrieved employees of
Washio, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
32. | Washio drivers are entitled to penalties for Washio’s violations of Cal. Lab. Code
§§ 2802 and 226(a) as set forth by Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(f). Plaintiffs seek civil penalties
pursuant to PAGA for (1) failure to reimburse delivery driver employees for all necessary
expenditures incurred in performing their duties, including but not limited to fuel, car
maintenance, parking, phones, and data, in violation of Labor Code § 2802, and (2) failure to
provide itemized wage statements in violation of § 226(a).
33. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(f) provides for civil penalties for violation of all Labor
Code provisions for which no civil penalty is specifically provided. There is no specified civil
penalty for violations of Cal. Lab, Code § 2802. With respect to violations of Labor Code §
226(a), Labor Code § 226.3 imposes a civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by
law of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per aggrieved employee for the first violation, and one
thousand dollars ($1,000) per aggrieved employee for each subsequent violation of Labor Code §
226(a).
34. Plaintiffs complied with the notice requirement of Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3 and
mailed a written notice to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”),
and Defendant via Certified Mail, return receipt requested, on June 10, 2015, It has been 33
days or more since the LWDA was notified of the Laber Code violations asserted in this
Complaint, and the LWDA has not provided any notice that it will or will not investigate the
alleged violations.
7
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a trial by jury on all their claims.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court certify this case as a national class
action (applying California law), pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 382; award reimbursement for all expenses that drivers who were misclassified as
independent contractors were required to bear; award pre- and post-judgment interest;
award reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; and award any other relief to
which the plaintiffs may be entitled.
§
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 10
10
11
12 |
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
26
27
28
Dated:
July 24, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
BARRY TARANTO, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
By their attorneys,
Lh A
Shannon Liss- i an, pro Liu Yael
Adelaide Pagano, pro hac vice anticipated
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 994-5800
Email: sliss@ilrlaw.com, apagano@llrlaw.com
Welw weboornteo
Matthew Carlson, SBN 273242
CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 817-1470
Email: mearlson@carlsonlegalservices.com
9
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Back to 
