Kalin v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-8071102.). Filed byTaylor Kalin. (Dion-Kindem, Peter) (Filed on 10/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

LONNIE C. BLANCHARD, III (SBN 93530)
JEFFREY D. HOLMES (SBN 100891)
THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
3311 East Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90023
Telephone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]

PETER R. DION-KINDEM (SBN 95267)
THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
8
PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P. C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
9 Woodland Hills, California 91367
Telephone: [phone]
10 Fax:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
7

11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiff Taylor Kalin, the Classes
and Aggrieved Employees

13
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18

Taylor Kalin, individually and on behalf of
all the classes and aggrieved employees,

19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,

25
26

Class, Collective and Representative
Action Complaint:
1.
2.

vs.
Apple, Inc.,

23
24

Case No.

Defendant.

3.
4.
5.
6.

Failure To Pay Wages
Fair Labor Standards Act
Violations
Waiting Time Penalties
Wage Statement Violations
Unfair Competition
Civil Penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act (Labor
Code § 2698 et seq.)

27
28

Demand for Jury Trial
Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
1

1
2
3

Plaintiff Taylor Kalin (“Plaintiff”) brings this Class, Collective and Representative
Action Complaint against Defendant Apple, Inc. and on information and belief alleges as
follows:

4

JURISDICTION

5
6

1.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved

7

employees, brings this class, collective, and representative action for recovery of

8

unpaid wages and penalties under California Labor Code Sections identified

9

below, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4 (“IWC Wage Order”),

10

California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., and the Fair

11

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and

12

restitution.

13

2.

This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant’s violations of the FLSA pursuant to 29

14

U.S.C. Section 216 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because the action asserts rights

15

arising under federal law.

16

3.

This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant’s violations of the state law provisions

17

alleged herein because these claims derive from the same common nucleus of

18

operative facts as the FLSA claim.

19

4.

Defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

20

Section 1391(c) because it operated retails stores where it employed Plaintiff

21

within the Northern District of California.

22

VENUE

23
24

5.

Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. Section

25

1391 because Apple is headquartered in this judicial district and a substantial part

26

of the events giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in this judicial

27

district.

28

6.

This matter is properly assigned to the San Francisco Division of this District
Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
2

1

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c) because Defendant maintains numerous retail

2

stores within the counties comprising the San Francisco Division and employs

3

numerous hourly non-exempt employees at those locations, who, on information

4

and belief, were subjected to Defendant’s illegal policies and practices alleged in

5

this action. As stated in Defendant’s written rules, the mandatory personal package

6

and bag search policy “appl[ies] to all employees of Apple Inc. and participating

7

subsidiaries in the United States.” See Apple Employee Policies. Therefore, a

8

substantial part of the events or omissions that give rise to the claims occurred

9

within this Division within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-2(c).

10

PARTIES

11
12

7.

Plaintiff is a California resident residing in San Francisco County. During the four

13

years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint in this action and within

14

the statute of limitations periods applicable to each cause of action pled herein,

15

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly non-exempt employee. Plaintiff

16

has lost money and/or property and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed to

17

him by the FLSA, California Labor Code provisions, California Business and

18

Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (Unfair Competition), and California

19

Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001 (hereafter “Wage Order 4-

20

2001”).

21

8.

Defendant Apple, Inc. is a California corporation that is headquartered in

22

California. During the four years preceding the filing of the Complaint and

23

continuing to the present, Defendant operated retail stores in California and

24

elsewhere within the United States and the world.

25

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

26
27
28

9.

For the purposes of this matter, Class Members include, but are not limited to,
Kalin and all non-exempt employees who were employed by Apple as non-exempt
Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
3

1

Specialists, Lead Specialists and Expert Specialists (“Specialists”) and non-exempt

2

Managers, Senior Managers, Developmental Managers and Business Managers

3

(“Managers,”). Specialists and Managers are collectively referred to as Hourly

4
5

Employees.
10.

6

products and accessories. Specialists are also required to have knowledge of and be

7

able to perform light diagnostic checks on Apple hardware and software. A

8

Manager’s duties include overseeing the Specialists and tending to customer-

9

related needs. Specialists and Managers are non-exempt hourly employees who are

10
11

entitled to overtime compensation.
11.

12

2012.
12.

15

clock out when they leave for the day. The time-keeping system and the

17

procedures for using it are the same at each Apple retail store. In this regard, Apple

18

uses time tracking software developed by Kronos, Inc. The software requires

19

Hourly Employees to enter a username and password to clock in and clock out

20

each day.
13.

22

Kalin typically was required to arrive 15 minutes or more before his shift was
scheduled to begin because there was typically a line of employees waiting to

23

clock in on time and he never knew how long the line would be. On Launch days,

24

it would take up to 30 minutes or more to clock in because of the lines. Similarly,

25

when Hourly Employees returned from their meal periods, they were required to

26
27

Hourly Employees are required to clock in when they arrive at work, clock out
when they go on a meal break, clock in when they return from a meal break and

16

21

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a full-time non-exempt Specialist at stores
in Spokane and San Francisco from approximately September 2010 to November

13
14

A Specialist’s duties include customer support relating to retail sales of Apple

wait in line to clock in.
14.

Apple did not compensate Kalin or the other Hourly Employees for the time they

28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
4

1
2

were required to spend waiting in line to clock in.
15.

3

Kalin and other Hourly Employees were required by Apple to check the devices

4

out at the beginning of their shift and check the devices back in at beginning of the

5

meal period if they left the premises and at the end of the shift, after the employees

6

had clocked out. Because many Hourly Employees were required to do this, the

7
8

check-in time could take anywhere from five to 45 minutes or more.
16.

9

required to undergo personal package and bag searches before they were permitted

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

After they had clocked out at the end of their shifts or at the beginning of the meal
breaks, after they checked in the devices, Kalin and other Hourly Employees were

10

12

Kalin and other Hourly Employees were required to use company devices at work.

to leave the store.
17.

Apple has adopted a uniform nationwide policy that provides “[a]ll employees,
including managers and Market Support employees, are subject to personal
package and bag searches.” See Apple Employee Conduct Manual. If an Hourly
Employee refuses to submit to this security screening or deviates from the
corporate policy in any way, it “could result in disciplinary action, up to and
including termination.” See Apple Employee Policies. Hourly Employees were and
are required to wait in line and be searched for potential or possible store items or
merchandise taken without permission and/or other contraband. Thus, at the
discretion and control of the Defendant and solely for its benefit, Plaintiff and
other Hourly Employees were and are required to wait in line for security checks
for at least 10-15 minutes each day before leaving for their meal breaks and at the
end of their shift after they had already clocked out. This daily 10-15 minute
uncompensated waiting time during security checks was done in order to undergo
searches for possible contraband and/or pilferage of inventory. Because such
screening is designed to prevent and deter employee theft, a concern that stems
from the nature of the employee’s work (specifically, their access to high value

28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
5

1

electronics and merchandise), the security checks and consequential wait time are

2
3

necessary to the employee’s primary work and done solely for Apple’s benefit.
18.

4

and/or end their shifts at the same time. This creates lengthy lines and backups for

5

managers, members of the security team and others authorized to conduct security

6

screenings who are often times engaged in other job related duties. As a result,

7

Hourly Employees are forced to wait in these lines and undergo lengthy off-the-

8

clock security screenings before they are allowed to leave the premises. This

9

work, done primarily for the employer’s benefit, is time which Hourly Employees

10

should be, but are not compensated for, both straight hours and overtime hours

11
12

worked in excess of 40 in a week or, in California, in excess of eight in a day.
19.

13

[their] bags and packages before [they] left the store.” See Apple Employee

15

Conduct Manual. Additionally, the policy forbids Specialists and Managers from

16

leaving the store “prior to having [their] personal package or bag searched by a

17

member of management or the security team (where applicable).” Id.
20.

19

Apple Employee Policies. Thus, these uncompensated wait times and security

21

screenings unlawfully deprive Hourly Employees in Apple’s retail stores

22

throughout the country of the proper compensation due them.
21.

24

Waiting in lines to clock in, waiting in lines to check equipment in, and waiting in
line and undergoing security checks were significant, integral, indispensable, not

25

de minimis tasks or requests and were done solely for Apple’s benefit to allow

26
27

These policies are uniform throughout every Apple retail store and “apply to all
employees of Apple Inc. and participating subsidiaries in the United States.” See

20

23

Apple’s corporate employee conduct policy mandates and requires that Specialists
“[f]ind a Manager or member of the security team (where applicable) to search

14

18

A large number of Specialists and Managers leave for lunch at the same time

Apple to track its employees’ hours and to prevent employee pilferage.
22.

Apple did not compensate Kalin or the Hourly Employees for this time.

28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
6

1

23.

2

failed to furnish Plaintiff and members of the Wage Statement Class with accurate

3

and complete wage statements regarding their regular rates of pay, rates of

4

overtime pay, total gross wages earned, and total net wages earned in violation of

5
6

Defendant knowingly and intentionally, as a matter of uniform policy and practice,

Labor Code Section 226.
24.

7

Defendant’s failure to furnish Plaintiff and members of the Wage Statement Class
with complete and accurate itemized wage statements resulted in actual injury

8

because such failures led to, among other things, the non-payment of all their

9

regular and overtime wages and deprived them of the information necessary to

10

identify the discrepancies in Defendant’s reported data.

11

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

12
13

25.

Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the

14

following Classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of Federal Procedure and the

15

FLSA.

16

26.

17

All Hourly Employees who worked in an Apple, Inc. retail store in the
United States, who are or were employed within the three years preceding
the filing of this action by the Defendant to the present and who were: (a)
not compensated for off-the-clock time spent waiting to clock in, waiting to
check in equipment, or waiting in security screening lines and undergoing
personal package and bag searches before being allowed to leave the
premises; and/or (b) were not fully compensated for this time worked over
eight per day and/or over 40 hours per week at overtime rates.

18
19
20
21
22
23

Excluded from the California Unpaid Wages Class are Defendant, its legal
representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, and any
individual who has or had a controlling interest in Apple. Also excluded are
persons and entities who submit timely and otherwise proper requests for
exclusion from the FLSA Class.

24
25
26
27

The California Unpaid Wages Class. This consists of:

27.

The FLSA Class. This consists of:

28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
7

1

All Hourly Employees who worked in an Apple, Inc. retail store in the
United States, who are or were employed within the three years preceding
the filing of this action by the Defendant to the present and who were: (a)
not compensated for off-the-clock time spent waiting to clock in, waiting to
check in equipment, or waiting in security screening lines and undergoing
personal package and bag searches before being allowed to leave the
premises; and/or (b) were not fully compensated for this time worked over
40 hours per week at overtime rates.

2
3
4
5
6

Excluded from the FLSA Class are Defendant, its legal representatives,
officers, directors, assigns, and successors, and any individual who has or
had a controlling interest in Apple. Also excluded are persons and entities
who submit timely and otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the
FLSA Class.

7
8
9
10
11

28.

12
13

Wages Class for whom Defendant failed to pay all compensation owing them.
29.

14
15

The Wage Statement Class. This consists of members of the California Unpaid
The Waiting Time Penalty Class. This consists of Defendant’s formerly
employed members of the California Unpaid Wages Class.

30.

Numerosity/Ascertainability. The members of the Classes are so numerous that

16

joinder of all members would be unfeasible and impracticable. The membership of

17

the classes and subclasses are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, but Plaintiff

18

estimates that the Classes number greater than 1,000 individuals as to each Class.

19

The identity of such membership is readily ascertainable via inspection of

20

Defendant’s employment records.

21

31.

Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate/Well Defined Community

22

of Interest. There are common questions of law and fact as to Plaintiff and all

23

other similarly situated employees, which predominate over questions affecting

24

only individual members including, without limitation to:

25

A.

Whether Defendant violated the applicable Labor Code provisions including,

26

but not limited to Sections 510 and 1194 by failing to pay for all regular

27

and/or overtime hours worked;

28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
8

1

B.

2

of the Wage Statement Class pursuant to Labor Code 226;

3

C.

4

D.

6

termination of their employment were unlawful;
32.

9

The common questions set forth above are numerous and substantial and stem

11

from Defendant’s policies and/or practices applicable to each individual class

12

member, such as their failure to pay for time waiting to clock-in, time waiting to

13

check-in equipment, and/or time waiting in security lines. These common

14

questions predominate over individual questions concerning each individual class

15

member’s showing as to his or her eligibility for recovery or as to the amount of

16

his or her damages.
33.

18

California and the United States during the statutes of limitation applicable to each

20

claim alleged in the Complaint in this action. Plaintiff, like the members of the

21

Classes, was deprived of all regular and overtime wages, was furnished with

22

inaccurate and incomplete wage statements, and was not paid all wages owed at

23

26
27

Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Classes because
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee in

19

25

Predominance of Common Questions. Common questions of law and fact
predominate over questions that affect only individual members of the Classes.

10

24

Whether Defendant’s policies and/or practices for the amount of payment of
final wages to members of the Waiting Time Class at the time of the

7

17

Whether Defendant failed to maintain accurate records for members of the
Record Keeping Class;

5

8

Whether Defendant failed to keep legally compliant records for the members

the time of Plaintiff’s termination.
34.

Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is fully prepared to take all necessary steps
to represent fairly and adequately the interests of the members of the Classes.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s attorneys are ready, willing and able to fully and adequately
represent the members of the Classes and Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s attorneys have

28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
9

1

prosecuted numerous wage-and-hour class actions in state and federal courts in the

2

past and are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

members of the classes.
35.

Superiority: The California Labor Code is broadly remedial in nature and serves
an important public interest in establishing minimum working conditions and
standards in California. Similarly, the FLSA is remedial in nature and serves an
important public interest in establishing minimum working conditions and
standards through the United States. These laws and labor standards protect the
working employee from exploitation by employers who have the responsibility to
follow the laws and 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 laws available to Plaintiff and members of the Classes
make the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to
redress the violations alleged herein. If each employee were required to file an
individual lawsuit, Defendant would necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage
since they would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources of each
individual plaintiff with their vastly superior financial and legal resources.
Moreover, requiring each member of the Classes 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 damages to their careers at
subsequent employment. Further, the prosecution of separate actions by the
individual class members, even if possible, would create a substantial risk of
inconsistent or varying verdicts or adjudications with respect to the individual class
members against Defendant herein; and which would establish potentially
incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant; and/ or legal determinations with
respect to individual class members which would, as a practical matter, be

28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
10

1

dispositive of the interest of the other class members not parties to adjudications or

2

which would substantially impair or impede the ability of the class members to

3

protect their interests. Further, the claims of the individual members of the class

4

are not sufficiently large to warrant vigorous individual prosecution considering all

5
6

of the concomitant costs and expenses attending thereto.
36.

7

As such, the Rule 23 Classes identified above are maintainable as a Class under
Rule 23(b)(l) and/or Rule 23(b)(3).

8

First Claim for Relief - Failure To Pay Wages
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the California Unpaid Wages Class)

9
10
11

37.

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 36.

12

38.

This cause of action is brought on behalf of the California Unpaid Wages Class

13

pursuant to Labor Code Sections 204, 510, 1194, and 1198, which provide that

14

hourly non-exempt employees are entitled to all overtime wages and compensation

15

for hours worked and provide a private right of action for the failure to pay all

16

compensation for regular and overtime work performed.

17

39.

which they were not compensated, including overtime hours.

18
19

Plaintiff and members of the California Unpaid Wages Class worked hours for

40.

Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and members of the

20

California Unpaid Wages Class for time spent waiting to clock in, time spent

21

waiting to check in equipment, and/or time spent waiting in security lines violates

22

California labor laws, and Plaintiff and members of the California Unpaid Wages

23

Class are entitled to the unpaid wages owed, including interest thereon, statutory

24

penalties, civil penalties, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
Second Claim for Relief - FLSA Violations
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the FLSA Class)

25
26
27

41.

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 40.

28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
11

1
2

42.

This claim is brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sections 206 and 207.

43.

Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Class worked hours for which they were not

3
4

compensated and/or worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
44.

5

FLSA Class for time spent waiting to clock in, time spent waiting to check in

6

equipment, and/or time spent waiting in security lines violates the FLSA’s wage

7

and overtime requirements including, but not limited to 29 U.S.C. Sections 206

8
9

and 207.
45.

10
11

Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and members of the

Defendant’s policies and practices constitute a willful violation of the FLSA,
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 255.

46.

12

Plaintiffs and members of the FLSA Class are entitled to unpaid wages and/or
overtime owing, including liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.

13

Third Claim for Relief - Waiting Time Penalties
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Waiting Time Penalty Class)

14
15
16

47.

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 46.

17

48.

Labor Code Section 201 provides in relevant part:
If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the
time of discharge are due and payable immediately…

18
19
20

49.

Defendant violated Section 201 as to members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class

21

who were discharged by willfully failing to pay the wages earned and unpaid upon

22

the termination of their employment, including unpaid wages for regular hours

23

worked, unpaid overtime, unpaid meal premiums and/or unpaid rest period

24

premiums in the manner required by Section 201.

25
26
27
28

50.

Labor Code Section 202 provides:
If an employee not having a written contract for a definite period quits hish
or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later
than 72 hours thereafter, unless the employee has given 72 hours previous
Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
12

1

notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled
to his or her wages at the time of quitting. .

2
3

51.

Defendant violated Section 202 as to Plaintiff and members of the Waiting Time

4

Penalty Class who quit by willfully failing to pay the wages earned and unpaid

5

upon the termination of their employment, including unpaid wages for regular

6

hours worked, unpaid overtime, unpaid meal premiums and/or unpaid rest period

7

premiums in the manner required by Section 202.

8

52.

9

compensation pursuant to Labor Code Section 203, plus reasonable attorney’s fees

10

and costs of suit.

11

Fourth Claim for Relief - Wage Statement Violations
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Wage Statement Class)

12
13
14
15

53.

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 52.

54.

Defendant knowingly and intentionally, as a matter of uniform policy and practice,
failed to furnish Plaintiff and members of the Wage Statement Class with accurate

16

and complete wage statements regarding their hours worked, total gross wages

17
18
19

earned, and total net wages earned in violation of Labor Code Section 226.
55.

because such failures led to, among other things, the non-payment of all their

21

regular and overtime wages and deprived them of the information necessary to

22

24
25
26

Defendant’s failure to furnish Plaintiff and members of the Wage Statement Class
with complete and accurate itemized wage statements resulted in actual injury

20

23

Plaintiff and members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class are entitled to

identify the discrepancies in Defendant’s reported data.
56.

Plaintiff and members of the Wage Statement Class are entitled to damages and/or
penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 226, including statutory penalties, civil
penalties, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

27
28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
13

1

Fifth Claim For Relief - Unfair Competition
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Classes)

2
3

57.

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 56.

4

58.

In doing the acts alleged above, Defendant have engaged and continue to engage in

5

unfair and/or unlawful business practices in California in violation of California

6

Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

7

59.

Defendant’s unfair and/or unlawful business practices have deprived Plaintiff and

8

members of the classes compensation and/or moneys to which they are legally

9

entitled

10

60.

Plaintiff and members of the Classes are entitled to restitution of all moneys

11

withheld, acquired and/or converted by the Defendant pursuant to Business and

12

Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17208.

13

61.

14
15

The acts complained of herein occurred within the last four years immediately
preceding the filing of the Complaint in this action.

62.

Plaintiff was compelled to retain the services of counsel to file this court action to

16

protect Plaintiff’s interests and those of the Classes and to enforce important rights

17

affecting the public interest. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs

18

pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.

19
20

Sixth Claim for Relief - Penalties Pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act

21

63.

Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 62.

22

64.

Pursuant to Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq., the Private Attorney General Act of

23

2004 (“PAGA”), Plaintiff is entitled to recover civil penalties on behalf of himself

24

and other persons who are or were employed by the alleged violator and against

25

whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.

26

65.

One or more of the alleged violations alleged herein was committed against

27

Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is therefore an “aggrieved employee” under Labor Code

28

Section 2699(c), which provides in relevant part:
Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
14

1

(c) For purposes of this part, “aggrieved employee” means any person
who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of
the alleged violations was committed.

2
3
4

66.

Plaintiff, members of the Classes, and other aggrieved employees.

5
6

As alleged above, Defendant have committed Labor Code violations against

67.

Plaintiff’s attorney gave written notice by certified mail to the Labor and

7

Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and to the Defendant identifying

8

violations alleged herein. Once thirty-three days have passed from the date of the

9

mailing of the notice, Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege

10

exhaustion of the administrative requirements for bringing a claim under PAGA.

11

68.

Labor Code Section 2699(g) provides that any “employee who prevails in any

12

action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”

13

Plaintiff has incurred attorney’s fees and costs in pursuing this claim.

14

PRAYER

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment for himself and for all others on
whose behalf this suit is brought against Defendant as follows:
1.

For an order certifying the proposed Classes;

2.

For an order appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Classes;

3.

For an order appointing Counsel for Plaintiff as Counsel for the Classes;

4.

For compensatory damages according to proof;

5.

For liquidated damages according to proof;

6.

For statutory damages according to proof;

7.

For civil penalties according to proof;

8.

For restitution according to proof;

9.

For injunctive relief according to proof;

10.

For costs and attorney’s fees according to proof;

11.

For prejudgment interest according to proof;
Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
15

1
2

12.

For such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: October 8, 2013

THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM

3
4
5
6
7
8

BY:_______________________________
PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
PETER R. DION-KINDEM
Attorneys for Plaintiff Taylor Kalin

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
16

1
2
3
4

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this case.
Dated: October 8, 2013

THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM

5
6
7
8
9

BY:_______________________________
PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
PETER R. DION-KINDEM
Attorneys for Plaintiff Taylor Kalin

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

CONSENT OF PLAINTIFF TAYLOR KALIN RE CONSENT TO SUE
I, Taylor Kalin, declare:
1.

I am a Plaintiff in the above-captioned action. I have personal knowledge of

the following and would and could competently testify thereto if called as a witness.
2.

I hereby consent to be joined in this suit against Apple, Inc. under the Fair

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 et seq., for unpaid wages and other relief
available under the Act.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: ___________________

_____________________________
Taylor Kalin

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Class, Collective and Representative Action Complaint
18