File: /home/wynnelaw5142/www/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ChuckECheesecomplaint.html
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<link>
<title>Righetti & Wynne - Chuck E. Cheese Complaint</title>
<style><!--
.Normal
{font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" class="Normal">
<table width="600" border="0">
<tr>
<td class="Normal">
<p><b>MATTHEW RIGHETTI, ESQ. ��� {121012}</b></p>
<p><b>EDWARD J. WYNNE, ESQ.� ������� {165819} </b></p>
<p><b>RIGHETTI LAW FIRM</b></p>
<p>220 Montgomery Street, 16th Floor</p>
<p>San Francisco, CA� 94104</p>
<p>(415) 983-0900</p>
<p>Attorneys for Plaintiffs</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center'><b>SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA</b></p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center'><b>LOS ANGELES COUNTY</b></p>
<p>FREDDY GAVARRETE and other,� �������������������� <b>NO.� <u>��������������������������������������
</u></b></p>
<p>members of the general public similarly</p>
<p>�situated,�������������������������������������������������������������������
<b>CLASS ACTION</b></p>
<p>�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
</p>
<p>����������������������� Plaintiffs, �����������������������������������������
<b><u>COMPLAINT</u></b></p>
<p>�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
</p>
<p>vs.������������������������������������������������������������������������������
</p>
<p>�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
<b>1.� Damages</b></p>
<p>CEC ENTERTAINMENT, INC., dba ������������������� <b>2.� Injunction</b></p>
<p>CHUCK E. CHEESE'S and DOES 1 thru�������������� <b>3.� Declaratory Relief</b></p>
<p>50, inclusive,������������������������������������������������������������
<b>4.� Unfair Practices Act</b></p>
<p>�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
<b>5.� Conversion</b></p>
<p>����������������������� Defendants.��������������������������������������
</p>
<p><u>�����������������������������������������������������������������������
</u>/��������� </p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b><u>FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION</u></b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� COMES NOW,
plaintiff, an individual over the age of eighteen (18), and brings this
challenge to defendants' lucrative, repressive and unlawful business practices
on behalf of himself, the general public and a class of all others similarly
situated and for a Cause of Action against defendants, and each of them,
alleges as follows:</p>
<b><u><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;
'><br clear=all style='page-break-before:always'>
</span></u></b>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b><u>THE PARTIES,
JURISDICTION AND VENUE</u></b></p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>1.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� At least some
of the acts complained of herein occurred in Los Angles County as defendant
CEC ENTERTAINMENT, INC., owns and operates restaurants in Los Angeles
County where plaintiff FREDDY GAVARRETE was employed and improperly classified
as an exempt salaried manager.� At all times herein mentioned, plaintiff
and the class identified herein worked as employees for CEC ENTERTAINMENT
INC. and DOES 1 through 50 (hereinafter "DEFENDANTS") in salaried
restaurant positions in DEFENDANTS' restaurants named "CHUCK E. CHEESE'S."�
The salaried restaurant positions of DEFENDANTS' employees are not positions
which involve work which falls within an exception to California Labor
Code Section 1194 and/or California Industrial Welfare Commission orders
applicable to DEFENDANTS' business.� The titles of DEFENDANTS' salaried
restaurant personnel include, but are not limited to, "General Manager,"
"Manager," and "Assistant Manager."� The acts complained
of in this First Cause of Action occurred, at least in part, within the
last three years preceding the filing of the complaint in this action.�
The class representative plaintiff who worked in a salaried position at�
a DEFENDANTS' restaurant within the State of California is FREDDY GAVARRETE.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>2.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Plaintiff is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned
DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 10, are and were corporations, business
entities, individuals, and partnerships, licensed to do business and actually
doing business in the State of California.� DEFENDANTS own and operate
an industry, business and establishment in approximately 60 separate geographic
locations within the State of California, including Los Angeles County,
for the purpose of making and selling pizzas and related food items.�
As such, and based upon all the facts and circumstances incident to DEFENDANTS'
business in California, DEFENDANTS are subject to California Labor Code
Section 1194, et seq., California Business and Professions Code Section
17200, et seq., (Unfair Practices Act) and the applicable wage order(s)
issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>3.� </b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Plaintiff does
not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or
corporate, of the DEFENDANTS sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
and for that reason, said DEFENDANTS are sued under such fictitious names,
and plaintiff prays leave to amend this complaint when the true names
and capacities are known.� Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that each of said fictitious DEFENDANTS was responsible in some
way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused plaintiff and
members of the general public and class to be subject to the illegal employment
practices, wrongs and injuries complained of herein.� </p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>4.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� At all times
herein mentioned, each of said DEFENDANTS participated in the doing of
the acts hereinafter alleged to have been done by the named DEFENDANTS;
and furthermore, the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were the agents, servants
and employees of each of the other DEFENDANTS, as well as the agents of
all DEFENDANTS, and at all times herein mentioned, were acting within
the course and scope of said agency and employment.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>5.� </b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt;'>����������� At all times
herein mentioned, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were members of, and engaged
in, a joint venture, partnership and common enterprise, and acting within
the course and scope of, and in pursuance of, said joint venture, partnership
and common enterprise.</p>
<b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;
'><br clear=all style='page-break-before:always'>
</span></b>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt;
'><b>6.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt;'>����������� At all times
herein mentioned, the acts and omissions of various DEFENDANTS, and each
of them, concurred and contributed to the various acts and omissions of
each and all of the other DEFENDANTS in proximately causing the injuries
and damages as herein alleged.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt;
'><b>7.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� At all times
herein mentioned, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, ratified each and every
act or omission complained of herein.� At all times herein mentioned,
the DEFENDANTS, and each of them, aided and abetted the acts and omissions
of each and all of the other DEFENDANTS in proximately causing the damages
as herein alleged.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b><u>FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS</u></b></p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>8.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Plaintiff and
all members of the class identified herein, were regularly scheduled as
a matter of uniform company policy to work and in fact worked as salaried
restaurant personnel for DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in excess of forty
hours per workweek without receiving straight time or overtime compensation
for such overtime hours worked in violation of California Labor Code Section
1197 and the applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission wage
order(s).� Plaintiff and the other members of the class were improperly
and illegally mis-classified by DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as "exempt"
managerial employees when, in fact, they were "non-exempt,"
non-managerial employees according to California law.� Plaintiff and the
other members of the class have the right to be compensated by DEFENDANTS
at the appropriate compensatory wage rate for said work heretofore performed,
consisting of the straight time rate plus the appropriate overtime premium
as mandated by California law.</p>
<b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;
'><br clear=all style='page-break-before:always'>
</span></b>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>9.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'><b>����������� </b>This
complaint is brought by plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure section 382 on behalf of a class.� All claims alleged herein
arise under California law for which plaintiff seeks relief authorized
under California law.� The class is comprised of, and defined as, all
current and former California based salaried non-exempt restaurant personnel
who worked and/or are working overtime for DEFENDANTS within the last
four (4) years of the filing of the Complaint in this action up to and
including the time that this action is certified as a class, yet were
not paid overtime.� The members of the class are so numerous that joinder
of all members would be impractical, if not impossible.� The identity
of the members of the class is readily ascertainable by review of DEFENDANTS'
records.� Further, the subject matter of this action both as to factual
matters and as to matters of law, is such that there are questions of
law and fact common to the class which predominate over questions affecting
only individual members including, among other things, the following:</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� a.��������
Statistically, one hundred percent of the class members were paid on a
salary basis with no overtime compensation paid for work accomplished
in excess of forty hours per week per California law.� Plaintiff is informed
and believes and based thereon alleges that all class members regularly
performed non-exempt work in excess of 50% of their workday and workweek
and were not exempt from the overtime requirements of California law for
that reason;</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� b.��������
DEFENDANTS uniformly administered a corporate policy concerning both staffing
levels and duties and responsibilities of the class members which required
that the class members both work overtime without appropriate pay and
regularly spend more than 50% of their time performing non-exempt tasks.�
This included a uniform corporate pattern and practice of allocating and
authorizing inadequate staffing levels at the individual restaurants.�
The inadequate staffing levels were enforced and ensured through the uniform
and mandated corporate policy of a minimal "labor budget" applicable
to each restaurant location. <b>�</b>This corporate conduct is accomplished
with the advance knowledge and designed intent to place customer service
and other clerical "non-management" duties and responsibilities
onto the shoulders of the class members who were customarily and regularly
caused to work far in excess of forty hours in a week without pay.� Thus,
plaintiff and all other members of the class routinely, regularly and
customarily (i.e., well in excess of 50% of their work time) performed
non-exempt and non-managerial work.� Thus, such employees are entitled
to overtime compensation under California law.� Further, DEFENDANTS dispensed
misinformation amongst the restaurant employees to the effect that salaried
restaurant personnel are not entitled to overtime compensation under DEFENDANTS'
labor policies and practices and under California law.� </p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� c.��������
The duties and responsibilities of the salaried restaurant personnel were
virtually identical from region to region, area to area, restaurant to
restaurant, and, employee to employee.� Further, any variations in job
activities between the different individuals are legally insignificant
to the issues presented by this action since the central facts remain,
to wit, plaintiffs and the class members performed non-exempt work in
excess of 50% of the time in their workday, that their workday routinely
included work in excess of 40 hours per week and/or 8 hours per work day
and they were not, and have never been, paid overtime compensation for
their work per California law.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>10.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'><b>����������� </b>Plaintiff
and members of the class identified herein were discharged by DEFENDANTS
or voluntarily quit, and did not have a written contract for employment.�
The DEFENDANTS, in violation of California Labor Code sections 201 and
202, et seq., respectively, had a consistent and uniform policy, practice
and procedure of willfully failing to pay the earned and unpaid wages
of all such former employees.� The DEFENDANTS have willfully failed to
pay the earned and unpaid wages of such individuals, including, but not
limited to, regular time, overtime, vacation time, and other wages earned
and remaining uncompensated according to amendment, or proof.� Plaintiff
and other members of the class did not secret or absent themselves from
DEFENDANTS nor refuse to accept the earned and unpaid wages from DEFENDANTS.�
Accordingly, DEFENDANTS are liable for waiting time penalties for the
unpaid wages pursuant to California Labor Code � 203. </p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>11.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� As a pattern
and practice, in violation of the aforementioned labor laws and wage orders,
DEFENDANTS did not maintain any records pertaining to when plaintiffs
and the members of the class began and ended each work period, meal period,
the total daily hours worked, and the total hours worked per pay period
and applicable rates of pay in violation of California Labor Code � 1174.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>12</b>.</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� There are predominant
common questions of law and fact and a community of interest amongst plaintiff
and the claims of the class concerning whether DEFENDANTS' regular business
custom and practice of requiring substantial "overtime" work
and not paying for said work according to the overtime mandates of California
law is, and at all times herein mentioned was, in violation of California
Labor Code Section 1194 and California Industrial Welfare Commission wage
orders.� DEFENDANTS' employment policies and practices wrongfully and
illegally failed to compensate plaintiff and the other members of the
class for substantial overtime compensation earned as required by California
law.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>13.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'><b>����������� </b>The
claims of plaintiff are typical of the claims of all members of the class.�
Plaintiff, as a representative party, will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class by vigorously pursuing this suit through attorneys
who are skilled and experienced in handling civil litigation of this type.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>14.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� The California
Labor Code and Wage Order provisions upon which plaintiff bases his claims
are broadly remedial in nature.� These laws and labor standards serve
an important public interest in establishing minimum working conditions
and standards in California.� These laws and labor standards protect the
average working employee from exploitation by employers who may seek to
take advantage of superior economic and bargaining power in setting onerous
terms and conditions of employment.� The nature of this action and the
format of laws available to plaintiffs and members of the class identified
herein make the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate
procedure to redress the wrongs alleged herein.� Further, this case involves
one large corporate employer and a large number of individual employees
with many relatively small claims.� If each employee were required to
file an individual lawsuit, the corporate DEFENDANTS would necessarily
gain an unconscionable advantage since it would be able to exploit and
overwhelm the limited resources of each individual plaintiff with their
vastly superior financial and legal resources.� Requiring each class member
to pursue an individual remedy would also discourage the assertion of
lawful claims by employees who would be disinclined to file an action
against their former and/or current employer for real and justifiable
fear of retaliation and permanent damage to their careers at subsequent
employment.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>15.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'><b>����������� </b>The
prosecution of separate actions by the individual class members, even
if possible, would create a substantial risk of (1) inconsistent or varying
adjudications with respect to individual class members against the DEFENDANTS
and which would establish potentially incompatible standards of conduct
for the DEFENDANTS, and/or (2) adjudications with respect to individual
class members which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the
interests of the other class members not parties to the adjudications
or which would substantially impair or impede the ability of the class
members to protect their interests.� Further, the claims of the individual
members of the class are not sufficiently large to warrant vigorous individual
prosecution considering all of the concomitant costs and expenses.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>16.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Such a pattern,
practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding illegal
employee compensation as described herein is unlawful and creates an entitlement
to recovery by the plaintiff and the class identified herein, in a civil
action, for the unpaid balance of the full amount of the straight time
compensation and overtime premiums owing, including interest thereon,
willful penalties, reasonable attorneys fees, and costs of suit according
to the mandate of California Labor Code Section 1194, et seq.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>17.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Proof of a
common business practice or factual pattern, of which the named plaintiff's
experiences are representative, will establish the right of each of the
members of the plaintiff class to recovery on the causes of action alleged
herein.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>18.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� The plaintiff
class is entitled in common to a specific fund with respect to the overtime
compensation monies illegally and unfairly retained by DEFENDANTS.� The
plaintiff class is entitled in common to restitution and disgorgement
of those funds being improperly withheld by DEFENDANTS.� This action is
brought for the benefit of the entire class and will result in the creation
of a common fund.� </p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b><u>SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION</u></b><u></u></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� COMES NOW,
plaintiff and as a second, separate and distinct cause of action against
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, allege as follows:<u></u></p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>19</b>.
</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Plaintiff herein
repeats and re-alleges as though fully set forth at length each and every
paragraph of this Complaint, excepting those paragraphs which are inconsistent
with this cause of action for an injunction.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>20.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� DEFENDANTS'
wrongful and illegal conduct in failing to pay overtime compensation to
the plaintiff and the members of the class despite the clear legal obligation
to do so, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court,
will cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiff and all members of
the class in that the DEFENDANTS will continue to violate these California
laws, represented by labor statutes and IWC Wage Orders, unless specifically
ordered to comply with same.� This expectation of future violations will
require current and future employees to repeatedly and continuously seek
legal redress in order to gain compensation to which they are entitled
under California law.� Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy at law to
insure future compliance with the California labor laws and wage orders
alleged to have been violated herein.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b><u>THIRD
CAUSE OF ACTION</u></b><u></u></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� COMES NOW,
plaintiff and as a third, separate and distinct cause of action against
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, allege as follows:</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>21</b>.
</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Plaintiff herein
repeats and re-alleges as though fully set forth at length each and every
paragraph of this Complaint, excepting those paragraphs which are inconsistent
with this cause of action for declaratory relief.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>22.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� An actual controversy
has arisen, and a dispute now exists, between plaintiff and the members
of the class represented by him, and DEFENDANTS, and each of them, concerning
the respective rights, duties, obligations and liabilities of the respective
parties, both as to the past and as to the future, in that plaintiff and
the members of the class represented by him contend that the above-mentioned
pattern, practice and uniform administration of corporate policy regarding
their work requirements and scheduling both constitutes work in excess
of forty (40) hours per week and is compensable at the applicable overtime
rate pursuant to the laws of the State of California notwithstanding the
fact that plaintiff and the class members are paid a salary; whereas DEFENDANTS,
and each of them, deny said contentions and in turn contend that the regular
policy and procedure of work activities applicable to plaintiff and members
of the class are not subject to overtime compensation legal requirements
and/or are not in excess of 40 hours per week and/or 8 hours per day,
and further contend that plaintiff and the members of the class represented
by him are not entitled to any further compensation whatsoever for said
work since they are paid a salary.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>23.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Plaintiff and
the members of the class represented by him, desire a declaration of their
rights, and the duties and obligations of the DEFENDANTS, and each of
them, in regard to this ongoing controversy and dispute which continues
to this day.� Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate in order
that plaintiff and the members of the class represented by him, may ascertain
their rights in reference to said work to be performed in the future,
so that they may not be deprived of their just compensation for work to
be performed in the future.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b><u>FOURTH
CAUSE OF ACTION</u></b><u></u></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� COMES NOW,
plaintiff and as a fourth, separate and distinct cause of action against
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, alleges as follows:<u></u></p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>24</b>.
</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Plaintiff herein
repeats and re-alleges as though fully set forth at length each and every
paragraph of this Complaint, excepting those paragraphs which are inconsistent
with this cause of action for relief regarding DEFENDANTS' violations
of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (Unfair
Practices Act).<b><u></u></b></p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>25.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� DEFENDANTS,
and each of them, have engaged and continue to engage in unfair business
practices in California by practicing, employing and utilizing the employment
practices outlined in Paragraphs 8-11, inclusive, to wit, by requiring
plaintiff and the members of the class to perform the labor services complained
of herein without overtime compensation.� DEFENDANTS' utilization of such
unfair business practices constitutes unfair competition and provides
an unfair advantage over DEFENDANTS' competitors.� Plaintiff seeks, on
his own behalf, on behalf of other members of the class similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, full restitution and disgorgement
of monies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all
monies withheld, acquired and/or converted by the DEFENDANTS by means
of the unfair practices complained of herein.� Plaintiff seeks, on his
own behalf, on behalf of other members of the class similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, the appointment of a receiver, as
necessary.� Plaintiff seeks, on his own behalf, on behalf of other members
of the class similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
an injunction to prohibit DEFENDANTS from continuing to engage in the
unfair business practices complained of herein.� The restitution includes
all wages earned and unpaid, including interest thereon.� The acts complained
of herein occurred, at least in part, within the last four (4) years preceding
the filing of the complaint in this action.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>26.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Plaintiff is
informed and believes and on that basis alleges that at all times herein
mentioned DEFENDANTS have engaged in unlawful, deceptive and unfair business
practices, as proscribed by California Business and Professions Code section
17200 et seq., including those forth in Paragraphs 8-11 herein thereby
depriving plaintiff and other members of the general public the minimum
working condition standards and conditions due to them under the California
labor laws and Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders as specifically
described herein.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b><u>FIFTH
CAUSE OF ACTION</u></b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� COMES NOW,
plaintiff and as a fifth, separate and distinct cause of action against
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, alleges as follows:</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>27</b>.
</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� Plaintiff herein
repeats and re-alleges as though fully set forth at length each and every
paragraph of this Complaint, excepting those paragraphs which are inconsistent
with this cause of action for conversion.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>28.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� At the time
DEFENDANTS refused to pay the wages due to plaintiff, as alleged herein,
plaintiff had earned, owned and had the right to possess the withheld
wages.� DEFENDANTS willfully and without legal justification interfered
with plaintiff's right to own and possess his wages.� The exact amount
of those wages is capable of being made certain from a review of either
the information from plaintiff and class members, or from the records
of DEFENDANTS.</p>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>29.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� In refusing
to pay wages to the plaintiff and the class members, DEFENDANTS unlawfully�
and intentionally took and converted the property of plaintiff and the
class to their own use.� At the time the conversion took place, plaintiff
and the class were entitled to immediate possession of the amounts of
wages payable.� This conversion was oppressive, malicious and fraudulent.�
This conversion was concealed by the DEFENDANTS from the plaintiff and
the class.</p>
<b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Palatino;
'><br clear=all style='page-break-before:always'>
</span></b>
<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:24.0pt'><b>30.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� The plaintiff
and the class have been injured by this conversion and are entitled to:�
(1) all monies converted by the DEFENDANTS with interest thereon; (2)
any and all profits, whether direct or indirect, the DEFENDANTS acquired
by their conversion; and, (3) punitive and exemplary damages.</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� WHEREFORE,
plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of the members of the class
and the general public, pray for judgment as follows:</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 1.��������
For an order certifying the proposed class;</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 2.��������
Upon the First Cause of Action, for consequential damages according to
proof as set forth in California Labor Code section 1194, et seq. (and
the applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders) related
to overtime wages due and owing;</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 3.��������
Upon the First Cause of Action, for waiting time penalties according to
proof pursuant to California Labor Code section 203;</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 4.��������
Upon the Second and Fourth Causes of Action, that DEFENDANTS be ordered
to show cause why they should not be enjoined and ordered to comply with
the applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders related
to payment of overtime compensation and record keeping for DEFENDANTS'
salaried restaurant personnel who are primarily engaged in non-exempt
work and work more than 40 hours per week or 8 hours per day; and for
an order enjoining and restraining DEFENDANTS and their agents, servants
and employees related thereto;</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 5.��������
Upon the Third Cause of Action, for a declaratory judgment and a decree
adjudging and decreeing that the plaintiff and the members of the class
represented by him, have regularly worked compensable overtime; further,
that the work performed and to be performed by plaintiff and the members
of the class is subject to overtime compensation requirements and/or is
in excess of 40 hours per week and/or 8 hours a day, and that plaintiff
and the members of the class represented by him are entitled to overtime
compensation for said work;</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 6.��������
Upon the Fourth Cause of Action, for restitution to plaintiff and other
similarly effected members of the general public (and disgorgement from
DEFENDANTS) of all funds unlawfully acquired by DEFENDANTS by means of
any acts or practices declared by this Court to be violative of the mandate
established by California Business and Professions Code section 17200,
et seq.;</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 7.��������
Upon the Fourth Cause of Action, for the appointment of a receiver to
receive, manage and distribute any and all funds disgorged from the DEFENDANTS
determined to have been wrongfully acquired by the DEFENDANTS as a result
of violations of California Business and Professions Code section 17200
et seq.; </p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 8.��������
Upon the Fifth Cause of Action, for (a) all monies converted by the DEFENDANTS
with interest thereon; (b) any and all profits whether direct or indirect,
the DEFENDANTS acquired by their conversion; and, (c) punitive and exemplary
damages;</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 9.��������
For pre-judgment interest as allowed by California Labor Code section
1194 and California Civil Code section 3287, and for liquidated damages
on the straight time portion of uncompensated hours of work (not including
the overtime portion thereof), as authorized by California Labor Code
Section 1194.2 (a);</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 10.������ For
reasonable attorneys fees, expenses and costs as provided by California
Labor Code section 1194, et seq.; and,</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>����������� 11.������ For
such other and further relief the court may deem just and proper.</p>
<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:24.0pt'>DATED:�������� May 23,
2000������������������������ RIGHETTI LAW FIRM</p>
<p style='text-align:justify'>�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
<u>�����������������������������������������������������������������������
</u></p>
<p style='text-align:justify'><b>�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
EDWARD J. WYNNE, ESQ.</b></p>
<p style='text-align:justify'>�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Attorneys for Plaintiffs</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>