Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 1 of 47 EXHIBIT Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 2 of 47 DAVID BORGEN, CA Bar No. 099354 dborgen al.com . GOLDS EIN, RGEN, DARDARIAN H0 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 . Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800; (510) 835-1417 (fax) MICHAEL MALK, CA Bar No. 222366 mm malklaw?rm.com MIC AELMALK, ESQ. APC 1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite-302 Los An eles, CA 90035 (310) 2 3-0016; (310) 499-5210 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAUL YALE, individually and on behalf of Case No.: others Sim11arly Situated, CLASS ACTION Plaintiff? COMPLAINT . vs. (1) FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES (I.W.C. WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, (2) Defendant. (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (3) (9) ORDER NO. 4-2001, AND CAL. LAB. CODE 204, 1118.12,1194, 1197); FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES (I.W.C. ORDER NO. 4-2001, AND CAL. LAB. CODE 204, 510, 1194, 1198); FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS (I.W.C. ORDER NO. 4-2001, AND CAL. LAB. CODE 226.7, 512); FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS (I.W.C. ORDER NO. 4-2001, AND CAL. LAB. CODE 226.7); FAILURE TO REIMBURSE BUSINESS EXPENSES (CAL. LAB. CODE 2802); . LATE PAYMENT OF WAGES (CAL. LAB. CODE 204); FAILURE TO FURNISH TIMELY AND ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS (CAL. LAB. CODE 226, 226.3); FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ACCURATE PAYROLL RECORDS (CAL. LAB. CODE 1174, 1174.5); UNLAWFUL UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. BUS. PROF. CODE 17200, et seq); (10) VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT (CAL. LAB. CODE 2698, et seq.) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT - CASE NO: 419403-5 LII-PWN Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 3 of 47 1. Plaintiff PAUL YALE(?Plaintiff?) alleges as follows on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public: I. INTRODUCTION 2. Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of other individuals who worked as Judges levels one through three for. Defendant WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC (?Defendant? or ?Wizards?) in California. He seeks compensation for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, missed meal and rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages, failure to furnish timely and accurate 8 wage statements, failure to maintain accurate payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and interest and penalties thereon; and reasonable attorneys? fees and costs, under, inter alia, California Labor Code 218.5, 226, 1194, 2699, 2802, Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5, and Business and Professions Code 17200 based upon the allegation that Defendant?s violations of California?s wage and hour laws and Fair Labor Standards Act as described more fully below, had been ongoing for at least four years prior to the ?ling of this action and will continue until enjoined by the Court. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Venue as to Defendant is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 395(a) and 395.5. The unlawful, fraudulent, deceptive and unfair conduct, practices, activities, policies and procedures challenged and complained of herein occurred in the County of Santa Clara. Defendant either owns, maintains offices, or transacts business, within the County of Santa Clara or otherwise is found within this judicial district of the State of California, and Defendant is within thejurisdiction of this Court for purposes of service of process. Wizards is an out-of-state limited liability company that has not filed a statement with the Secretary of State designating a principal of?ce in California. During different periods over the last four years, Plaintiff worked for? Defendant on a near-weekly basis (and sometimes more than once per week) as a Judge for Friday Night Magic events, as well as weekly Encounters programs, at Legends Comics and Games located in Cupertino, County of Santa Clara. He also worked for Defendant as judge for special events at the Channel Fireball Game Center in Santa Clara. 1 COMPLAENT .. CASE NO.: Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 4 of 47 4. Plaintiff further alleges that the proposed class is found around the State of California, and the County of Santa Clara will provide a practical and convenient venue for the common issues alleged in this case. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action which alleges solely California state law labor code and Business Professions Code claims. 6. Plaintiff?further alleges that this matter cannot be maintained in federal court because this action raises no federal questions over which a federal court would havejurisdiction. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, was a domiciled resident and citizen of the State of California. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant was his employer. PARTIES A. 7. Plaintiff is a resident of California. The acts complained of herein occurred within the last four (4) years preceding the ?ling of the Complaint and continue to the present. 8. Mr. Yale has worked as a Judge for Defendant in California from approximately April 1997 through the present. At all times during Mr. Yale?s work as a Judge for Defendant, Defendant . failed to pay him minimum and overtime wages, provide off-duty meal and rest periods or pay meal/rest premium compensation for missed or on-duty meal and rest periods, or reimburse his reasonably incurred business expenses, as required by the California Labor Code. Mr. Yale has not been provided with accurate itemized wage statements because he has not been paid for any (of the hours he worked. Additionally, Defendant has failed to keep accurate payroll records showing the actual number of hours worked. B. Defendant 9. According to California Secretary of State records, Wizards is a Foreign Limited Liability Company. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Wizards is qualified to do business and actually doing business in the State of California, but does not reside or maintain its principal place of business in California. Wizards owns and operates an industry, business and establishment within the State of California, including but not limited to the 2 COMPLAINT - CASE NO.: OGOONJON Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 5 of 47 County of Santa Clara for the purpose of selling games and game-related products, within the State of California. Thus, Wizards is subject to the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. (Unfair Practices Act claims alleged herein). 10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES to 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues Defendants by such ?ctitious names under Code of Civil Procedure ?474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the unlawful acts referred to herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to re?ect the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated hereinafter as DOES when such identities become known. Defendant Wizards of the Coast, LLC and Does l-100 shall collectively be referred to as ?Defendant.?- IV. FACTUALBACKGROUND ll. Wizards is a for-pro?t business that sells products related to a collectible card game called Magic the Gathering (?Magic?). I 12. Defendant runs an extensive and highly regulated system of tournaments for Magic players. The tournaments are created, controlled, and regulated by Defendant. Tournaments are used as a marketing tool to keep players active in the game and give Defendant a means to sell their product. 13. Tournaments are overseen by Judges who are highly regulated by Defendant. Defendant maintains a system of Judge Levels from one to ?ve, with increasing work requirements. 14. Becoming a Judge requires registering with Defendant, going through training and testing, and documenting participation in tournaments. Acquiring and maintaining certi?Cation as a Judge requires around twenty??ve hours per month per Judge Level. Judges are expected to read extensive announcements, directives, instructions, rulings, and discussions by e?mailand on various Wizards? websites, provide their contact information on the Wizards? website, contribute reports, renew their certi?cation with regular?testing, train other Judges, and provide evaluations of other Judges. 3 COMPLAINT - CASE no: Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 6 of 47 15. Outside of tournaments, Wizards uses Judges as representatives to retailers and players. Judges are expected to be available to provide customer service, instruction, and support to retailers and players and investigate and submit reports regarding retailers? compliance with Wizards policy. Wizards maintains a listing of Judges with their contact information, certifications, and activity for the use of its retailers and customers. Failure to act in accordance with Wizards requirements at any time is considered a breach of the certification and disciplinary or other punitive measures are taken. Although some Judges may receive product from Wizards, generally, Wizards does not pay Judges for their time worked. 4 l6. The work performed by Judges for the benefit of Defendant and under its close supervision and control created an employer and employee relationship which obligated Defendant to pay Plaintiff. and similarly situated Judges wages compliant with the California Labor Code, including but not limited to minimum and overtime wages and wages for missed meal and rest periods- Defendant, by creating an employer and employee relationship with Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges, was also required to comply with other provisions of the California Labor Code including the requirements to furnish accurate and timely wage statements, maintain adequate pay roll records, and reimburse employee business expenses. 17. There are about 300 Judges in California. They are not paid wages, given meal or rest breaks, given timely or accurate wage statements, or fully reimbursed for their business expenses. 18. Defendant also failed to record the actual hours worked by Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges. As a result, Defendant failed to itemize the total hours worked or even furnish any form of wage statement to Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges. 19. Plaintiff is informed and on that basis alleges that Defendant has not properly maintained payroll records showing the actual hours worked each day by Judges, including Plaintiff. V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 20. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated Judges, as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 382. The class which Plaintiff seeks to represent is de?ned as: All current and former Judges levels one to three who worked for Wizards, 4 - CASE NO: {11-Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 7 of 47 LLC in California during the period commencing four years from the ?ling of this action through the entry of ?nal judgment in this action. 21. Plaintiff, pursuant to the applicable California Rules of Court, may hereby amend and further modify the classes described herein into divisions for particular issues. I 22. The claims herein have been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under Code of Civil Procedure 382 because there is a well?de?ned community of interest among class members with respect to the claims asserted herein and the proposed class is easily ascertainable. 23. Ascertainability: The proposed classes consist of readily ascertainable persons. The entire membership of the classes is unknown to Plaintiff at this time; however, the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable via inspection of Defendant?s records of Judges. 24. Numerosity: Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereupon alleges, that the proposed class is numerous, likely exceeding 300 during the Class Period. The potential quantity of Class members is so numerous that joinder of all members would he unfeasible and highly impractical. 25. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiff for damages, penalties, and restitution are typical of all proposed class members. Plaintiff and the proposed Class suffered a common injury as a result of Defendant?s common course of unlawful conduct. 26. Adequacy: Plaintiff is a member of the proposed class. Plaintiff is informed of his duties as a class representative and has committed to serving in that capacity as a fair and adequate representative. Plaintiff?s interests in the pursuit of the case are not adverse to the interest of other class members, and Plaintiff is aware of no con?icts of interest that are capable of destroying his adequacy to pursue the claims made herein. Plaintiff?s counsel are competent and experienced in litigating complex wage and hour class actions.- 27. Superiority: Class certification is appropriate because a class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Each class member has been damaged and is entitled to recovery by reason of Defendant?s illegal policies and practices set I forth above. Class action treatment will allow those similarly situated persons to litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient and economical for the parties and the judicial system. 5 COMPLAINT - CASE no: Case Document 1-1 Filed12/31/15 PageBof 47 28. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and Law: Thereare common questions of law and fact as to. the members of the Classes which predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Classes including, without limitation: a. Whether a for-pro?t company can evade state labor laws through use of unpaid volunteer labor; b. Whether Wizards is an employer of Plaintiff and the Class within the meaning of California Labor Code; 0. Whether Defendant?s failure to compensate Plaintiff and the Class violates . California?s minimum and overtime wage laws; (1. Whether Defendant?s failure to provide meal and rest periods to Plaintiff and the Class violates the California Labor Code; e. Whether Defendant?s failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements violates the California Labor Code; f. Whether Defendant?s failure to maintain adequate payroll records violates the California Labor Code; g. Whether Defendant was required, under the California Labor Code, to reimburse Plaintiff and the Class for their necessary business expenses; and h. Whether Defendant?s California Labor Code violations constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices, under Business Professions Code 17200, et seq. 29. Manageability of Class and Common Modes of Proof: The nature of this action and the nature of laws available to Plaintiff make use of the class action format a particularly ef?cient and appropriate procedure to afford relief to Plaintiff for the wrongs alleged herein. Speci?cally, Defendant maintains all records necessary to identify each and every Class member. Plaintiff is also informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant keeps detailed records of the identity of Judges, Judges? contact information, and the tournaments at which each Judge worked. To the extent the Defendant maintains inadequate records, or has not retained records, Plaintiff proposes surveys, representative testimony of Class members, and record sampling done on a statistically significant and randomized basis to prove each claim as hereinafter alleged. initial investigation shoWs 6 CASE NO.: L11 4-3 {23.10 soo'oqox Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 9 of 47 a clear and common pattern and practice of California Labor Code violations to both lower their labor costs and to increase their pro?tability for game and game-related product sales. Further, Defendant utilized this uniform practice and procedure to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other sellers of game and game?related products by lowering its labor costs. The unpaid wages in this case are easily capable of being estimated in part, by reference to Wizards? databases which record, inter alia, - the number of ?rounds? judged by each Judge. A time value may be assigned to each round in the absence of the required time cards, aggrieved employees may estimate their unpaid hours of work, including training time, set up time, etc. Hernandez v. Mendoza, 199 Cal. App. 3d 721, 727?28 (1998) (where employer fails to keep accurate records of hours worked, plaintiffs? credible evidence regarding hours worked is dispositive). The damages for unreimbursed business expenses can be determined based on surveys and representative testimony. Plaintiff and the members of the Class herein mentioned are entitled to monies and information unlawfully withheld from them by Defendant. Further, the public is entitled to restitution and disgorgement of those funds being improperly withheld by Defendant. This action is brought for the bene?t of the public, for the bene?t of the affected employees, to promote the public policy of the State of California to protect employee wages and to prevent unfair competition in lending. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of California Labor Code 204, 1182.12, 1194, 1197, and I.W.C. Wage Order 4-2001) 30. Plaintiff re-alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 31. Labor Code 1194(a) provides that ?Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, I reasonable attorney?s fees, and costs of suit.? I i 32. Labor Code 1194.2(a) provides that, ?In any action under . . . Section 1194 to recover wages because of the payment of a wage less than the minimum wage ?xed by an order of the commission, an employee shall be entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon.? 7 COMPLAINT CASE no: Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 10 of 47 33. Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges performed work on behalf of Defendant without monetary compensation, during the course of their employment, as required by Labor Code 204, 1182.12, 1194, 1197 and I.W.C. Wage Order 4-2001. 34. As a result of Defendant?s unlawful acts, Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges have been deprived of compensation in an amount to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, plus interest thereon, liquidated damages under Labor Code 1194.2, and attorneys? fees and costs, under Labor Code 218.5, 218.6, and 1194. 35. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Judges, also requests further relief as described below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Pay Overtime Wages' 1n Violation of California Labor Code ??204,510,1194, 1198, and l. W. C. Wage Order 4? 2001) 36. Plaintiff re?alleges each and every paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 37_. Labor Code 510 and the ?Hours Days of Work? Section of the I.W.C. Wage Order entitles non-exempt employees to one and one-half times their hourly pay for any and all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours up to and including twelve (12) hours in any work day, for the first eight (8) hours worked on the seventh (7th) consecutive day of work in a work week, and for any work in excess of forty (40) hours in any one work week. I 38. On tournament days, Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day without compensation. 39. By failing to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges, Defendant violated and continues to violate Labor Code 204, 510 and I.W.C. Wage Order 4?2001. 40. 'As a result of Defendant?s-unlawful acts, Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges have been deprived of overtime compensation in an amount to be determined at trial, and are entitled to recovery of such amounts, plus interest thereon, attorneys? fees and costs, under Labor Code 1194. 41. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Judges, also requests further relief as described below. 8 COMPLAINT CASE NO.: Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 11 of 47 - THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Provide Mandated Meal Periods in Violation of California Labor Code 226.7, 512, and I.W.C. Wage Order 4-2001) 42. Plaintiff re-alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 43. Defendant failed to maintain a policy of providing meal breaks as required by Labor Code 226.7, 512 and I.W.C. Wage Order 42001. 44. Since at least four years prior to the ?ling of this action, Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges have worked in excess of ?ve (5) hours and at times ten (10) hours a day without being provided at least half hour meal periods in which they were relieved of their duties, as required by Labor Code 226.7 and 512 and Wage Order 4?2001. 45. Because Defendant failed to provide proper meal periods, it is liable to all Plaintiffs and similarly situated Judges fer one hour of additional pay at the. regular rate of compensation for each work day that the proper meal periods were not provided, pursuant to Labor Code 226.7 and Wage Order 42001, as well as interest thereon, plus reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of suit. 46. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Judges, also requests further relief as described below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Provide Mandated Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code 226.7 and I.W.C. Wage Order 42001) 47. Plaintiff re-alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 48. Since at least four years prior to the commencement of this action, Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges have regularly worked without any rest periods that are required by I.W.C. Wage Order 4?2001. See Brz?nker, 53 Cal. 4th at 1029 (?Employees are entitled to 10 minutes rest for shifts from three and one-half to six hours in length, 20 minutes for shifts of more than six hours up to 10 hours, 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 hours up to 14 hours, and so 49. Because Defendant failed to provide proper rest periods, it is liable to Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges for one hour of additional pay at the regular rate of compensation for each workday that the proper rest periods were not provided, pursuant to Labor Code 226.7 and Wage Order 4-2001, as well as interest thereon, plus reasonable attOrneys? fees and costs of suit. 9 COMPLAINT CASE No; Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 12 of 47 50. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Judges, also requests relief as described below. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Reimburse for Business Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code 2802) 51. Plaintiff re-allege each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 52. Labor Code 2802 provides that employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.? I 53. Beginning at least three years prior to the ?ling of this complaint, in order to discharge his Judge-related duties for Defendant, Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges have incurred expenses during two to three-day tournaments, such as for meals, lodging, and laundering the single uniform provided to each Judge, which were not reimbursed by Defendant. 54. Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges are entitled to reimbursement for these necessary expenditures, plus interest and attorneys? fees and costs, under Labor Code 2802. 55. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Judges, also requests relief as described below. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Late Payment of Wages 1n Violation of California Labor Code 204) 56. Plaintiff re?alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 57. At all relevant times, Labor Code 204 provides that all wages earned by any person in any employment between the and the 15th days, inclusive, of any calendar month, other than those wages due upon termination of an employee, are due and payable between the 16th and the 26th day of the month during which the labor was performed. I 58. At all relevant times, Labor Code 204 provides that all wages earned by any person in any employment between the 16th and the last day, inclusive, of any calendar month, other than those wages due upon termination of an employee, are due and payable between the and the 10th day of the following month. 10 COMPLAINT CASE no; Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 13 of 47 59. At all relevant times, Labor Code 204 provides that all wages earned for labor in excess of the normal work period shall be paid no later than the payday for the next regular payroll period. 60. During the relevant time period, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges all wages due to them, including but not limited to minimum and overtime wages, wages for missed meal and rest breaks, and necessary business-related costs and expenses, within any time period permissible by Labor Code 204. 61. Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges are entitled to recover all remedies available for violations of Labor Code 204, including Labor Code 210, which provides that every person who fails to pay the wages of each employee in violation of Labor Code 204 shall be subjected to a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100) for each initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each subsequent violation, plus twenty-?ve percent of the amount withheld. 62. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Judges, also requests relief as described below. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of California Labor Code 226, 226.3) 63. 1 Plaintiff re-alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 64. Labor Code 226 requires an employer to furnish its employees with an accurate itemized statement in writing showing, among other things: (1) gross wages earned; (2) total hours worked by each respective individual; (3) all deductions; (4) net wages earned; (5) inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid; (6) the name of the employee and an employee identification or social security number; (7) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; and (8) all applicable hourly rates in effect during each respective pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked by each respective individual. 65. As a pattern and practice, in violation of Labor Code 226(a), Defendant did not provide Plaintiff or similarly situated Judges with accurate itemized wage statements in writing showing: (1) regular rate of pay; (2) number of hours worked; (3) gross wages earned; (4) net wages earned; (5) inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid; (6) the name of the employee 1 i COMPLAINT CASE No.2 Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 14 of 47 and an employee identi?cation or social security number; (7) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; and (8) all applicable hourly rates in effect during each respective pay period and - the corresponding number of hours worked by each respective individual. Specifically, Defendant issued no pay statements whatsoever. 66. Defendant has knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with Labor Code 226(a) on each and every wage statement provided to Plaintiff and Class and Subclass Members. 67. Pursuant to Labor Code 226(e), the Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges are entitled to penalties as followsf a. Fifty dollars ($50.00) per employee for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs; b. One hundred dollars ($100.00) per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed $4,000 per claimant; and 0. Pursuant to Labor Code 226(g), the Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges are entitled to injunctive relief to ensure Defendant?s compliance with Labor Code 226. 68. Additionally, Labor Code 226.3 imposes a civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of two hundred ?fty 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). 69. The Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges are entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorneys? fees under Labor Code 226(h). 70. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Judges, also requests relief as described below. . EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Maintain Accurate Payroll Records in Violation of Labor Code 1174, 1174.5; I.W.C. Wage Order 4-2001) 71. Plaintiff re-alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 72. Labor Code 1174(d) requires in part that employers maintain payroll records showing the hours worked daily by their employees and wages paid to their employees. Pursuant to Labor Cede 12 COMPLAINT CASE NO.: Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 15 of 47 1174.5, any person employing labor who willfully fails to maintain accurate and complete records required-by Labor Code 1174(d) is subject to a penalty. 73. Defendant has violated Labor Code 1174 and 1.W.C. Wage Order 4-2001 by willfully failing to keep required payroll records showing the actual hours worked each day by Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges. 74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant?s failure to maintain payroll records, Plaintiff and similarly situated Judges have suffered actual economic harm because they have been precluded from accurately monitoring the number of hours worked and thus seeking all accrued minimum and overtime wages. 75. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Judges, requests further relief as described below. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Business Practices in Violation of California Bus. Prof. Code 17200 et seq.) 7 76. Plaintiff re-alleges each paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 77. Plaintiff brings this cause of action individually and as a representative of all others subject to Defendant?s unlawful acts and practices. 78. Business and Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair competition in the form of any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. 1 79. Business and Professions Code 17204 allows ?any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property? to proSecute a civil action for violation of the Unfair Competition Law. 80. Beginning at least four years prior to the ?ling of this action, and continuing to the present, Defendant has committed unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts and practices as de?ned by Business and Professions Code 17200 by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, provide meal and rest breaks, pay wages on time, furnish timely and accurate wage statements, maintain accurate payroll records, and reimburse business expenses in violation of state law and the federal FLSA of 1938. 13 COMPLAINT - CASE N01: Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 16 of 47 81. The above-described unlawful actions of Defendant constitute false, unfair, fraudulent and/or deceptive business practices, within the meaning of Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. 1 82. As a result of their unlawful acts, Defendant has reaped and continues to reap unfair bene?ts and illegal pro?ts at the expense of Plaintiff, and the Class he seeks to represent. Defendant should be enjoined from this activity, caused to speci?cally perform its obligations, and made to disgorge these ill-gotten gains and pay restitution to Plaintiff and the members of the Class including, but not limited to, restitution of all unpaid wages, plus interest, as well as attorneys? fees and costs. 83. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Judges, also requests relief as described below. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of the Private Attorney General Act Labor Code Section 2698, et seq.) . 84. Plaintiff realleges each paragraph of this Complaint as if fuily set forth. 85. California Labor Code Division 2, Part 2, Chapter 1, Section 558 provides: Any employer or other person acting on behalf .of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For any initial violation, ?fty dollars for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount suf?cientto recover underpaid wages. (2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which theemployee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. (3) Wages recovered pursuant to this section shail be paid to the affected employee. 86. Plaintiff has fully complied with the procedural requirements specified in Labor Code 2699.3 as to each of the alleged violations. A true and correct copy of the notice sent via certi?ed mail to the Defendant and California?s Labor and Workforce Development Agency is attached as Exhibit 1. Within 33 days of mailing Exhibit 1, the Labor and Workforce Develbpment Agency has failed to indicate that it intends to investigate the violations alleged by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is entitled to pursue causes of action pursuant to Labor Code 2699, et seq., the Private Attorney General Act cerAn. 14 COMPLAINT CASE no; Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 17 of 47 87. Enforcement of statutory provisions to protect workers and to ensure proper and prompt payment of wages is a fundamental public interest. Plaintiff" successful enforcement of important rights affecting the public interest will confer a signi?cant bene?t upon the general public. Private enforcement of these rights is necessary, as no public agency has pursued enforcement. Plaintiff is incurring a ?nancial burden in pursuing this action, and it would be against the interests of justice to require. the payment of attorneys? fees and costs from any recovery obtained, pursuant to, inter alia, Labor Code 2699. 88. As a result of the violations alleged, Plaintiff, as an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees employed by Defendant, seeks all civil penalties available pursuant to Labor Code 2699, including all civil penalties, attorneys? fees, expenses, and costs of suit. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff requests trial by jury for all claims so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class, prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: 1. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action; 2. That the Court declare that Defendant?s policies and/or practices of failing to pay minimum and overtime wages violate California law; 3. That the Court declare that Defendant?s policies and/or practices of failing to provide I meal and rest breaks violate California law; A 4. That the Court declare that Defendant?s policies and/or practices of failing to timely pay wages violate California law; 5. That the Court declare that Defendant?s policies and/or practices of failing to furnish timely and accurate wage statements violate California law; . 6. That the Court declare that Defendant?s policies and/or practices of failing to maintain accurate payroll records violate California law; 7. That the Court declare that Defendant?s policies and/or practices violate California law 1 5 COMPLAINT - CASE no: pawnOOQQ Case Document 1-1_ Filed 12/31/15 Page 18 of 47 by failing to reimburse all business expenses incurred by Judges in the discharge of their duties as employees of Defendant; 8. That the Court declare that Defendant?s above-mentioned polices and/or practices Violate Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. 9. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant from engaging in the practices challenged herein; 10. A mandatory injunction requiring Wizards to incorporate a non-pro?t recreational gaming entity that could lawfully utilize unpaid volunteers. 11. An award to Judges all unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages under California Labor Code 1194.2, wages under California Labor Code 226.7 for each missed meal or rest period, and unreimbursed business expenses, and interest thereon, they are owed, subject to proof at trial; 12. Compensatory damages in an amount according to proof; 13. Economic damages in an amount according to proof; 14. Interest accrued to date under the California Labor Code, including under Labor Code 204, 218.6, 221, 226.7, 510, and 2802; 15. Costs of suit incurred herein under the California Labor Code; 16. Reasonable attorneys? fees, including under California Labor Code 218.5, 226, 1194, 2699, 2802, and Civ. Code 10211.5, and/or other applicable law; 17. For an order that Defendant make restitution to Plaintiff and the Class identified herein due to their uniawful business practices as described herein pursuant to California Business and i Professions Code 17200-17205; and 18. Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. 16 COMPLAINT - CASE no: COIN ON U1 Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 19 of 47 Dated: October 28, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 1);er Bar No. 099354 GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN H0 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-9800; (510) 835-1417 (fax) MICHAEL MALK, CA Bar No. 222366 mm malklaw?rm.com MIC AELMALK, ESQ. APC 1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 302 Los An eles, CA 90035 (310) 2 3-0016; (310) 499?5210 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class 17 COMPLAINT - CASE NO.: Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 20 of ?47 EXHIBIT 1 Labor and Workforce Development Agency Notice Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 21 of 47 Malk Law Firm 1180 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE, SUITE 302 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90035 TELEPHONE 310) 203-0016 10) 499?5210 September 25, 2015 Via Certi?ed Mail: Wizards of the Coast, LLC 1600 Lind Avenue SW, Ste 400 Renton, Washington 98055 Labor and Workforce Development Agency Attn. PAGA Administrator 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: Paul Yale v. Wizards of the Coast, LLC Cal. Labor Code 2699.3 Notice of Intent to File PAGA Claims To Whom It May Concern, Along with my co-counsel, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian Ho, 1 represent Paul Yale. The purpose of this letter is to give notice to you and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency that our client, Paul Yale, intends to ?le a lawsuit on behalf of himself and all ?aggrieved employees? against Wizards of the Coast, LLC to allege penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General?s Act of 2004 Cal. Labor Code 2699, et seq.) based on WOC treating my client and all other Level 1 through 3 Judges (hereafter ?similarly aggrieved employees?) as ?volunteers?, and not employees. Speci?cally: I) WOC failed to pay regular and overtime wages for all hours worked by Mr. Yale and other similarly aggrieved employees for their time spent working as Level 1 - through 3 Judges at events and tournaments, including Friday Night Magic and store?based weekday events. WOC further failed to compensate Mr. Yale and similarly aggrieved employees for mandatory continuing education, all in violation of Cal. Labor Code 510, 1194, 1198; 2) WOC failed to provide Mr. Yale and other similarly aggrieved employees with off-duty meal breaks in violation of Cal. Labor Code. 512 and 226.7; 3) WOC failed to authorize and permit Mr. Yale and other similarly aggrieved employees with 10-minute rest breaks in violation of Cal; Labor Code 512 and 226.7; and 4) WOC failed to comply with itemized wage statement provisions in violation of California Labor Code 226, 1174, and 1175, and never issued any itemized statements to Mr. Yale and the other similarly aggrieved employees. Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 22 of 47 Wizards of the Coast, LLC September 25, 2015 Page 2 Since at least September 18, 2014, Mr. Yale other similarly aggrieved employees were subjected to the same uniform policies and procedures of WOC wherein WOC treated them as volunteers with no rights under the California Labor Code. However, Mr. Yale and the other similarly aggrieved emplOyees were and are employees of WOC. In order to work as Level 1 through 3 Judges, Mr. Yale and other similarly aggrieved employees were required to take tests administered by, and register with, WOC, undergo training, document their participation in tournaments, and complete rigor0us continuing education requirements. WOC expects Level 1 through 3 Judges to read extensive announcements, directives, instructions, rulings, and discussions by e-mail and on,various WOC websites, provide their contact information on the WOC website, contribute reports, renew their certi?cation with regular testing, train other Level 1 through 3 Judges, and provide evaluations of other Level 1 through 3'Judges. Moreover, the work of Mr. Yale and his other similarly aggrieved Level 1 through 3 Judges is performed under the close supervision and control of WOC, all of which creates an employer and employee relationship, and which entitles Mr. Yale and other similarly aggrieved employees with rights under the California Labor Code, including the rights to minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest breaks, and the right to receive regular itemized wage statements. As such, pursuant to Labor Code 2699.3, we write to inform you and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency of our intent to ?le a civil lawsuit against WOC to allege a PAGA claim in a lawsuit under Labor Code 2699, et seq, to be brought by Mr. Yale individually and on behalf of all other current and former aggrieved employees of WOC for penalties related to failure to pay regular and overtime wages, for failure to provide meal breaks and/or pay one hour of premium pay, for failure to authorize and permit rest breaks and/or pay one hour of premium pay, and failure to issue itemized wage statements. Very truly yours, Goldstein, Bergen, Dadarian Ho Malk Law Firm gy: ?lic??el aai? Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 23 of 47 EXHIBIT '10? 5?1! Case Document 11 Filed 12/31/15 Page 24 of 47 E-FILEI Nov 18. 2015 9:42 A David H. Yamasaki Chlel Executive Of?cerICle Superior Court of CA. County of Case #1.15.cv.2s7452 Filing By R. Walker. Deputy SUPERIOR 101? CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SARTA CLARA PAUL indivia?'zilly??nd" Cage Nb; _o,the;s similarly situatch . Piaintiff, vs. WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC 'and was? Eggigfg?fgr??c; 1 through .100, inclusive, DISCOVERY Defendants. . quplath?kd: 29; 2,015; Judge} Hon. Peter H. Kim :i'n .Dept;1 Civil Lingati'pn)? WHEREAS, ma Com?lh?fnt Ms. medi'ay Plaintiff (?Risintiff'y in? tjie Sup??pr' Cd?rt cram, De?ant-9c: ?29, 2015 $311.21 Assigned to Depmhi?nt'} [?pmpj'ex Civil H?h?f?lil??Peter H. Kin-Jan- presiding pandinga Ming on 1716 c?i?P?T?v?iiW HEREBY 'TheCoiirt (Etc-mines that die cm is COMPLEX wi?li?n the meanixgg of Court 3.4.00. Thcz-xna?erI-rgmdins assigned. for all purpnses; including Tara i. ii ism: Coast, LLC Supiriar Conn a} Ca{fohrfa Comm: qumim Ciarq, Case No. (-15 ~Cl? 28145.7 . ta Clara 46502 'Orritr Dimming use Camp'i'u and Sawing Discos 9J3 'IQinvah presiding? The parties are directed :?to:t1ie Eiectronic Filing and Service. Standing Order and' t1: the Guidelines for iheECo'mp'hex Civillitiga?bn' Department, oopi?s ofwi'iich may?edqwnioaded equivalent to,- personai service. The two court {jays extension af?rm for electionic service 'qampletr'd?by- 5:00 Fifth.- '5?9951111'311 sewed 1.56 follewmg-bn?i?ea?zdayl Department] and-?11 weasel arc, ordered to attend iulnerson. Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 25 of 47 E-FILED: Nov 18. 2015 9:42 AM. Superior Court of CA. County of Santa Clara. Cass Fittng #1338502 tdi's'riti'v'e?fy :ax'td .trial? 10? ?cparf?i?'ut' (Edmpicx Civii :Eitigtltibu), 'tiie Honorable. 15,616? H. ?ce?1i?trs.grg Electronic service under this Order shah be by tiic Court and ?111 parties to be under 1010 ?nes not appiy.A1'1y domimcnt frat: which service'- has not been ?ct?i.li?fter ard?e'rg?d. to submit it: fht? digital cc?ic's (if itii rldcuments-th'zi't manually tiled pricr to 1111: 3.1111312 pfthis Of?er. 'i?tir??ualnt to caiifomi?milesf 01091111, and maintenance of'thg: List 511311 be uiicii'cr? the auspices?of YALEES 1116 party in the complaint, 11111135.)- theiirs?t-?riamegi parryin?r-ea?h I Pursuant :6 66.111211111112111 Cede-sciatica 1061610, 52161; pert'y?s compiex? casejfee ,is' due within ten (10) ca'l'etidar da?y? oftliis date.- Plaintiff shail Serve a: copy 9f this? Order 1511 an parties foi?th'witli "and ??le 11 proof of service? within 3611611 .d?ays?ci? s'ervir'm: Any partyacbjuecting- to the" compiiBX ??esignaticn 'mt'ist ?ie alt biijcction 11nd =pt?or1f?bi service 1111111111. ten {days pfs?rvicc {his ?Grder?. the ciijectiOu must 136' ?led: xvittiinascyen' serifice Thc'C'curt Will. the submitte? pIrj?tadings. The Case rerh?aiihs set .?fcr Febrix?ark?Z?i 21116 2151111110 5.111.111 1 Con?sci for 11:11 j?aer'ties'jar? 9rd?red. 19 'mje'e't' mid c9nferi.i,1 Berinnat. 112.1151 '15" days. prior-10 the First ?C'zise Management Crinfc?rencc ahd- discigss the folioiiring issuesi 1.. issues reiateci to i'ecusaii -er'di?qm1i?cd11011; Yale 1131mm: ofdn Coast, LLC - Slayieriur Carin of 01111]me County rfSai?rtri Case No. Order Dawning Case Compfm- mid 5101 111g [313cm (in Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 26 of 47 Nov 18. 2015 9:62 AM. Superior Court of CA. County of Santa Clara. Case Filing Its-78502 2. Issucs?vo?fi?aw .?that, ii?mnsidere? by the Cou?g may-sihpiffyuor further of? the: 9118.6, ?regarding choice; o'f-J aw;- Appropriate altemmive .dis'pn'tc:' tesdluti'on' (ADR), :be example, mandatory settlement canf?renpe; arbi'?fa?bn, '43. Plan :.fdr?ms?er?atica .oif' ?vidcid??. add a. ?n?ifd?n 'sySt?tw for of ?dbc?mem Maugham of?th'i? Iit?igaliom 5, A pram ,for?dchancnt gidditib?a] whd?idci? "?501? (359$ fiUi?BEiligid?- goth-gt- in?gma?uh nigedbd? to cti??u?t ?eaningfui ADE is '6btiyiiuhd ii?it?: aka-(changer should; consider whem?mey wu?l stipulhte'd' ta limite'd me?ts in haw-111660? certi?cation gll'om?hg- the 'qpti?ii'n' to camp?re discovery -'35 AER ?unsuccessful; 7. Anytissues involving Offeyidence and con?'iih??a'lity; S. The handling'o'f a-ny-potern?hi pu?l'icitjv ?i'ssu?s; Couns'el.? "for Plaintiff is tq' ?take? I?ggd in pt?ph??g a. Jgiht case {Managemegnt- ,to fifte?en to? the. Fit-9'1 Case M?adag?zirent. an?! ingludc. thgz'fdllowing: 12. A S?nteni??t asst? addig?gn?mm?cs unlikely 'f'o bc (add?d ana?a prob?scd date by which ?dehftiyas must be se'nreii; . 2., identifying an p'f'irnary- dud ?qdon?aw coun?el, ad?resscs, 1elep'h0n'? numbers, email adites'scs and fax n'ungbeljs for all cquns?l; 3 A des'cripligri ?o'f till disc'oycry? comple't?d' t6 da?te h'nd any, outstanding cry a; of 111d 'datg. bf the p?gpfe?i?ehce; 4. Apjslicab'imy ?a?d ?uf?ireeabix'ig'r of airb?r'a'tiox} jclaus'ejs, "if any; Yuk! v. ofrlw Coast. LLC I =3 Superior Cour: Comm ome?a Clara. 6650' Na. 1 Ii?Cl- ?333" 45.? 0rd rchming Case Carnalm am! Siaving 10. n- 27 28 Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 27 of 47 NW 18. 2015 9:42 AM. Supador Gou? 01 GA. County OI Santa Clara. Case Filing #6?78502 .5: A dfall I?bl?'t?d li?ga?b? Pp?dil?g'ih Zebuits'. a ?fief d?escr'iptid?'y {any $13911 fl StalelnehL-z?yl?i ?31 \y?erhf?i' ajnyzadd-itibnal .. reiat?'d 61- A- de'scriptiph and Iggy! 21-11;: parties agaregsrany ,sfac'ci?'c . ?bntratl {lie 'in?tcmretatiqn 6f Which may in fia's?olu?on Off signi?cm . ?i'SSu'es in' the ?case; . 7. The parties? l'e?nt?atiw: vi?wsTOnIari-ADR Flow such "he intO' die?course?. 8. Wheilicndis?mveyy shodid' Be conducted 311 191121533 61' limited; and i'fso; 111661261210?" phasihg or- types pf?mita?ons of. Hisbovem- If {his iS'a ciass acti'ou Imvsu?itf ihe . pa?easbpqu .address theffssue Qf 'lim'i'ted- merits discovery in gavanccj bf class' -. cent'i?ca?ou the parties an; un?bl'e 011111;, maltots ,the 10,1111 Cage 'Confercnge' S'thicmenf, 1113+ pnsi?ans; each? party: or Qf. 33159113 ?parfi?g 511911151 he; get ?fth sgparafql?y? ?11,116 ,gti?a?hed. :?tg t?is r?pprt. as The. part?ibe aria enqdumge?i ['16 9139110512., either jo?ih?y_or scparht?lyi any qpproaizhes to: believe; ??vill promote the fail; ahd ??i?i?11t?handlih?9fthis case. :Ithourf 1511111119111me if? ig'ign?fy?ig Pdt?n??ny ng?i?c??f t?i'QSIHol? .i?s'ii?S W99 93.11}? . $591111ti 91? Which g??ay a'Ss'iSt 11.11 m6 931's; toward if?'egiixie- ADR W611 11? ?nd! dis?positioi1,_ ?if-{11% 1% ?ags ccpy= of?glfx? ?oun?s Gui?aei?ines for M?tions aiming to' Class 'C?rti??zi?d'? is 'attac'l?ie'a 11135' Order. "r?h?c cam may get a ?rie'?ng: "s?li?edute fbr' Plaintiff?s class cmi?'catioh mbtiou 'at the time of the cohfcr?ricc?: Pending further 'order ?of this ?21m?:i the service of discovery and like obbgation to regpond 10' any gutstanding discovery is .Defendant(s) shall .?le a Notice of Af?lbgquncq f?r purposes pfiden??pa?on of?qounscl and prbgara?o?n pf-?a' servicb Tha?ling of" such a'Nb?cg of. Appgarancc shall' be -1'vilI1opt ptgjudjceglo Int?n 11111131111 a 1110:1611 {q Ynic1. Hkmd: a?lm Cam; LLC Sirpenor Conn offalii'omia. Comte; ofSam'a Clam. Caqu: 1 18745.? Order accruing. Crud Complex am! 5101' mg Dis-cow" Nov 18. 2015 9:42 AM. Superior Court of CA. County 01 Santa Clara. Case Filing #6518502 gun'Sh? 10 contest jurikdiction.. 15.011505 5130111101 510 serve pleadings, including 2' answers #0 the complaint, motions 01013an _crb?s- 3 compi'?ints mutil. a-da?te is 501 at ?ie First forssu?lig?iingsfalid 4 hearings. 5 This girder is issued- to, assist ma than and {hegpar?c?'irii 4&9. '01" 5 ?Comm." pas: Wong-h 1hr: :?ev?lonment 9f an Bi?ee?t?? ??'ail'ie??n??SJ 1? shall mt? precl?defthe; .pa?ies' ?jorn tpnfinuingid. infoh?m?ly ?xchzinge- doc'ur?'ehts that. ay assist mime?!? bf?ic .isf-i-i?? $30835? 9' amen, '??pyibflhis Cider on an. thepm?uesm {hisqnarter .1155 . . A: Baikal?:- 11. I 5 . {3 Judggof (301m 1'11? 15.: "1'0 1., 1'33 19': an :21: 32' 23- :26. 27 928*- Ynle aflhc Coast. Su?eriof Cormp?Ca?i?'imih, alum: beama (0340. Casi-Mi. [17-28 Or?enbapmiug Case Slaying 0:300:th CaSe Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 28 of 47 5 ?Jam Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 29 of 47 I E-FILED: Nov 18. 2015 9:42 AM. Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara. Case #1-1s-cv-2ar452 146-78502 GUIDELINES r011- 111511110113 momma: 1 601111111111 :21er Lines-?tron moving for or against class certi?cation must. present in the; 11101 ing paperso odin'issilzl is evidence; as required by ap'pliCablo law, establishing that the elements for Certi?cation tif?,_ or are. not; present. must he set out in evidence submitted with the notice refraction and movin'gpapers. Each Iparty address all ei?tnenls relevant to deciding the appropnateness of. class and 15 not intended to Suppl ant substantive law. l.Commor1a1ity and Predominance must possess 'to be eligible for class membership b: 531 descriptionidetinition of proposed subclasses if any is; Those issues ofla?w which ?are c?on?1n?16nto?allelass members most be presented? 1?11 trial: In deseriIbing' th?ese unique issues of law, (the segments of the class to which they are applicable shoulii be described 111111 a statement of the number within the class to whom each unique issue. applies Whether, arid if so how common rssues oflaw predominate Those 1ssoes of fact which are common to all class members g. Thnsoassues of fact ?wliieh are uniq?ue, to one or? more class 1111111115111 but which must: heiprcsented at. trial in describing these unrque ,1ssues ot? Fuck the segments 0f the class to which they are applicable should hegd'eseribe'd with a statement of. . 11111111111111: within the {:Iloss to wheat each unique issue.- applies 11;, Whether, and if so how common' issues of fact predominate Ii. con?icts, if any, ?between class members 2. Ascertainability identi?ed 11111111 Jdentr?catton is contemplated Numerosity a. The approximate 1111111111101 persons in the class, and if there arc subclasses, the apprommate number of persons in each substatss The basis for the above approximations . e. The general geographic 11111111161111] ?of the elass tne'mbeis it the class 1s h?ot con?ned to the state of California, the description should include those. locations outside Chlifbmia ether-e class members are located Whether, and if so why, joind'er 1s impracticable 1519111111131 11. Why ?re claims and. states of each 01' the proposed class representati1e[s] are typical of those of the proposes class o'r ofthe proposed subclass .93. I. Griideh'nes ?rr Motions ralaig?iig '10 6111:;- Cent?mrinii, . . Litigation. Ai-l ?t'act's other than purely rebuttal matters upo'n which the mo?tnhg?party wiil rely in the heating-1 ofelcm?cnts set forth below 15 oFEercrl by the court as '11 general Summary? 11, The class 11111111111511; ineludi?rig? a statement of cr?it?eria?f that putative: class members I: 11?. Those" 1ssues of law which are unique to one or' more class members but which a. The manner 111 Which and the time when; the individual class members will ht: Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page Malian: rclm'ihg ta C'e?tf?cqit?n- Nov SB. 2015 9:42 AM. Superior Court of CA. County of Santa Clara. Case #14 5-CV-287452 116-78502 bf; Fajcugal (aqd'lo?r' legal diffgt'enqc'sj; '1'f any/gin the status as a 61355 member an'd thesaof any otherspersons within 11113 class. Hie; Subcl?q?s of whi?h' the rcp'i'cs'dnt?ati've is a membgri legal ?tmd/o?i' if any; pertaining: to the repce'senta?xrep] whi'ch'mu'stbp lit-igatca .1 . . Cbn?icts, if any; Betw??hth?; class'i'rgpr?sj?htziti'vqs] a?n?d the 61555 members. '51 Adequacy 511., The adgq?imy of {$355 cgun?Sel, i??lludjng th'e'~ abititygf 'el'as's' repre?gn?t ci'ass ciai'ms? tat-interest: b. The cabbquacy'q? reptgesemativ?s], incl'udihg th?g?bility 6111.1? {11135 l't'd 1113213. 'as ?unipricg for cla'i'ms 0r;1ntene?ts- . T116 is$?e?jof1?iy afa?li?ii?f?tt? Whi'qh?tnust b? litig?t?d behi'eelu'blas51r?ri?htb?t?s' 613,153 ag?p?n; which might be usedgto ?ai?dicata The. issues in?v?lvcd?in?theia?ticitii . . .13. Why a: .cIaS?s- action is; or: ?is not; supe?qr' {iatqeactj attemative l?t?n? ?letrie'ht of certifyihg that c'a'us'e df?gtibn; including a discds?ion hi the Iability of the? =Court- to' managg the; alternative? in relation 19 its ability to manage the .. Whethef there are shbs?tgt'tti?al be?n?c?ts to. Caur't, the'pat?qst {Ind/Or pu'biic? tagmcee?ding as a classuction. . 7-: Notice. . Counscf feqnes?hg .tzlass certi?cation should p'itovidc sp?e'ci?'cs .teg?airding? :necessarynoticc to c1ass members and the givingnb?ce. Id 6111'! Litigation Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 31 of 47 g?o David Borgen, (SBN 099354) dborgen GOLDS IN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN HO . 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 763 -9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417 Michael Malk (SBN 222366) MICHAEL MALK, ESQ. APC 1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 302 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Tel: (310) 203?0016 Fax: (310) 499?5210 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA r?nI?ot?I PAUL YALE, individually and on behalf of others Case No. similarly sxtuatei . moor? OF SERVICE Plaintiff, Ho? up. vs. WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, i??b-HO-v? DONG Defendant. - 00 ?4 U3 A PROOF OF SERVICE 59730211 Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 32 of 47 '9 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Case: Paul Yale v. Wizards of the C0031, LLC Case No. 1 ISCV2874S2 3 . STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 5 . I have an o?ce in the county aforesaid. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to 6 the?vg'thin entitled action. My business address is 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000, Oakland, California 94 1 . 7 I declare that on the date hereOfl served a copy of 3 . ORDER DEEMING CASE COMPLEX AND STAYING DISCOVERY 9 - SEE SERVICE LIST, BELOW 10 By US. Mail: By placing a true copy of the documentgs) listed above for Collection and i 11 mailing following the ?rm?s ordeary business practice :11 a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid or depos? the United States mail at Oakland, California addressed 12 as set forth below. (State) I declare under penalty of pexjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13 foregoing is true and correct. . l4 Executed at Oakland, California on November 2 15 15 lav-?Alf' fl? 16 60 item. limit/3793.4? L. ?(flab/J Peirnxui ?uxue a igxua 17 18 . SERVICE LIS 19 CT. Corporation System 818 W. 7th Street, #930 20 Los An geles, CA 9007 SERVICE . 5973024 .. . .uwouewsu Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 33.0f47 EXHIBIT l?i Case Document 1-1 KARL R. LINDEGREN, SBN 125914 SHAUN J. VOIGT, SBN 265721 FISHER PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone '(949) 85 ?2424 Facsimile (949) 851-0152 Attorneys for Defendant, WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC Filed 12/31/15 Page 34 of 47 Dec 16, 2015 5:00 PM - David H. Yamasaki Chief Executive Of?cer/Clerk Superior Court of CA. County of Santa Clara Case By T. Mai. Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAUL YALE, individually andon behalf of others similarly situated, . Plaintiffs, vs. WIZARDS THE COAST, LLC and DOES I through 100, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 1-15-cv?287452 Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Peter H. Kirwtn, Department 1 (Complex Civil Litigation) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Complaint Filed: October 29, 2015 7 Trial Date: None. TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN: I NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FPDOCS 313042661 Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15. Page 35 of47 E-FILED FPDOCS 313042661 DATE: December 16,2015 FISHER KARL R. LINDEGREN, SBN 125914 SHAUN J. VOIGT, SBN 265721 - FISHER PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone (949) 851~2424 Facsimile (949) 851-0152 1" Dec 16. 2015 5:00 PM. Superior Court of CA. County of Santa Clara. Case Filing PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the following attorneys hereby enter their appearance as counsel of record for defendant WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC: LIPS LLP KARL R. LINDEGREN SHAUN J. VOIGT Attorneys for Defendant, WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC 2 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE E-FILED Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 36 of 47 Dec 16. 2015 5:00 PM. Superior Court of CA. County of Santa Clara. Case Filing tics?79266 PROOF OF SERVICE 1013(a) and 2015.5) 1, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; am employed with the law of?ces of FISHER PHILLIPS LLP and my business address is 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000, Irvine, . California, 92614. On December 16, 2015, I served the foregoing document entitled NOTICE OF . APPEARANCE, on all the appearing-and/or interested parties in this action by placing the original or true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST [by I am readily familiar with the ?rm?s practice of. collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at-Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing this af?davit. [by PERSONAL I caused to be delivered by messenger such envelope(s) by hand to the of?ce of the addressee(s). Such messenger is over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action and employed with ASAP Legal Solution Attorney Services, LLC, whose business address is: 17817 Gillette Avenue, Irvine, . California, 92614 [by FEDERAL I am readily familiar with the ?rm?s ractice for collection and processing of correspondence for overnight delivery by Fe era] Express. Under that practice such correspondence will be deposited at a fability or pick-up box regulariy maintained by Federal Express for receipt on the same day in the ordinary course of business with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance with ordinary business practices. - [by Based on an agreement by the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed above. No error was-reported by the, fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached. K4 STATE - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California 1 that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on DATE. at Irvine, California. . Katie Costantino By: X83132 W40 Print Name Signature PROOF OF SERVICE 7 FPDOCS 313042661 Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page-37 of47 E-FILED 00. CYUI Dec 16. 2015 5:00? PM. Superlor Court of CA. County of Santa Clara, Case MAILING LIST David Bergen, Esq.- 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 Email: BORGEN, DARDARIAN HO Attorneys for Plaintiff, PAUL YALE Michael Malk, Esq. MICHAEL MALK, ESQ, APC 1180 S. Beverly Drive, suite 302 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 203?0016 Facsimile: (310) 4996210 Email: mmngalklaw?rmeom Attorneys for Plaintiff, PAUL YALE FPDOCS 31304266.1. PROOF OF Case Document 1-1 . Filed 12/31/15 Page 38 of 47 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ELECTRONIC - clo Giotrans - 2915 McClure Street Oakiand. CA94609 Dec 16, 2015 5:00 PM TEL: (510) 208-4775 David H. Yamasaki FAX: (510) 465?7348 Chief EXecutive Officer/Clerk EMAIL: Superior Court of CA. County of Santa Clara Case Filing By T. Mai. Deputy THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAUL YALE. individually and on behalf of Yaie v. Wizards of the Coast, LLC others similarly situated, Piaintiff, Lead Case Plaintiff, . vs. Hon. Peter Kirwan WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Defendant. . PROOF OF SERVICE AND RELATED ACTIONS Electronic Proof of Service I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. i am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2915 McClure Street, Oakland. CA 94609. The documents described on page 2 of this Electronic Proof of Service were submitted via the Worldwide Web on Wed. December 16, 2015 at 11:17 AM PST and served by electronic mail notification. have reviewed the Court's Order Concerning Electronic and Service of Pleading Documents and am readily familiar with the contents of said Order. Under the terms of said Order. I certify the above-described document?s electronic service in the foilowing manner: . A The document was electronically fiied on the Court?s website. on Wed. December 16. 2015 at 11:17 AM PST Upon approval of the document by the Court. an electronic mail message was transmitted to parties on the electronic service list maintained for this case. The message identified the document and provided instructions for accessing the document on the worldwide web. I declare under penaity of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 16. 2015 at Oakland, California. Dated: December 16, 2015 For Andy Jamieson Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 39 of 47 Dec 16. 2015 5:00 PM. SuperEor Court of CA. County of Santa Ctara, Case Filing #649266 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - Electronic Proof of Service Page 2 Documen?s) submitted by Shaun Voigt of Fisher Phillips LLP on Wed. December 16, 2015 Appearance: Notice of Appearance Case Document 1-1 SCC Superior Court E-Service The Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara Hon. Peter Kirwan Department 1a 191 N. FIrst Street San Jose CA 95113 Filed 12/31/15 Page 40 of 47 Page 1 of 1 info@glotrans.com (510) 208-4775 ELECTRONIC SERVICE NOTICE #1187?4 Case No: 1-1 5-CV-287452 Yaie v. Wizards of the Coast. LLC Document_#FDi41886: Title: Notice of Appearance (Click here to View document information) Type: Notice of Appearance Author: Shaun Voigt of Fisher Phillips LLP Parties: Wizards of the Coast. LLC Service list: Service date: i2I16/2015 11:43 AM Party name Attorney/Representative Contact Email address Superior Court of California Walker. Rowena Superior Court of California rwalker@scsoourt.org Wizards of the Coast, LLC Yale. Paul Borgen, David - Goldstein. Bergen. Dardarian dborgen@gbdhiegal.com Ho Maik, Michael Malk, Michaei - Michael Maik Law Offices Additional recipients of Electronic Service: Service recipient Email address Bergen, David [cc] ithompson@gdblegai.com Bergen. David {co} efiie@gdblegal.com Malk. Michael [cc] tinda@nnalklawfirm.com 187-4.html 12/18/2015 Case Document 11 Filed 12/31/15 Pag? 41 of 47 EXHIBIT Case Document 1-1 KARL R. LINDEGREN, SBN 125914 SHAUN J. VOIGT, SBN 265721 FISHER PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone (949) 851?2424 Facsimile (949) 851-0152 Attorneys for Defendant, WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC Filed 12/31/15 Page 42 of 47 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAUL YALE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, . Plaintiffs, vs. WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant. TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on December 31, 2015, Defendant WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC. petitioned for removal of the above?titled action from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern Case No. Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Peter H. Kirwin, Department 1 (Complex Civil Litigation) NOTICE PETITION FOR REMOVAL [28 U.S.C. 1446(d)] Complaint Filed: October 29, 2015 Trial Date: - None District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, 1441(a) and and 1446. 1 NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR REMOVAL [28 use. FPDOCS 313164361 Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 43 of 47 Attached hereto as Exhibit is a copy of the Notice of Removal which has been ?led in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446, the ?ling of the aforesaid Notice of Removal in the District Court, together with this Notice, effects the removal of this action and this Court may proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded from the District Court. DATE: FPDOCS 313164361 FISHER PHILLIPS LLP KARL R. LINDEGREN SHAUN J. VOIGT Attorneys for Defendant, WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC 2 NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR REMOVAL [28 U.S.C. Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 44 of 47 EXHIBIT Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 45 of 47 KARL R. LINDEGREN, SBN 125914 SHAUN J. VOIGT, SBN 265721 FISHER PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone (949) 851-2424 Facsimile (949) 851-0152 Attorneys for Defendant, WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAUL YALE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Peter H. Kirwin, Department 1 (Complex Civil Litigation) NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL To FEDERAL COURT [28 U.S.C. 1446(d)] October 29, 2015 None Complaint Filed: Trial Date: TO PLAINTIFF PAUL YALE AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on December 31, 2015, a Notice of Removal of this action was ?led in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Defendant WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit DATE: FISHER PHILLIPS LLP KARL R. LINDEGREN I SHAUN J. VOIGT Attorneys for Defendant, WIZARDS OF THE COAST, LLC NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT FPDOCS 313164391 Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 46 of 47 PROOF OF SERVICE a an . I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a arty to the Within action; am ern loyed with the laW of?cesof FISHER ILLIPS LLP and my busmess ad ress is 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000, Irvme, California, 92614. On December 31, 2015, I served the foregoirig document entitled NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSU TO 28 U.S.C. 1441 144 CAFA), on the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by placing the original a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelOpe(s) addressed as ollows: SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST [by I am readily familiar With the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be depOSited With the U.S. Postal Servrce'on that same day With postage thereon fully prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordina course of business. am _aware that on motion of the party serve service is presumed invalid if postege cancellation. date or postege meter date is more than one day after date 0 depos1t for mailing this affi avit. by ELECTRONIC I served the above listed ocument(s) described Via _the United. States District Court?s Electronic Filing Program on the deSIgnated reCipients via electronic transmission through the stern on the Court?s websue. The Court?s stern Will enerate a otice of Electronic Filing_(NEF) to the fillie? 1party, assigne Judge, and an registered users in the case. The Will constitute service of the ocument(s). Registration as a user eonetitutes consent to electronic service through the court?s transmission aCi ities. {_by FEDERAL I am readily familiar With the firm?s practice or collection and of correspondence for overnight delive Federal Express. .Under _that practice such correspondence Wil be deposited at a facrlity or pick-up box regularly maintained by Federal Ex ress for receipt on the same day in the ordinary course of busmess With . de ivery fees paid or prov1ded for in accordance With ordinary business practices. - STATE. - I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregomg is true and correct. Executed on December 31, 2015 at Irvine, California. Shaun J. Voigt By: Shaun J. Voigt Print Name Signature PROOF OF SERVICE FPDOCS 313079051 Case Document 1-1 Filed 12/31/15 Page 47 of 47 MAILING LIST David Bor en, Es . GOLDST HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612? Telephone: 510 763-9800 Fac51mile: 510 835-1417 Email: dborgen N, BO GEN, DARDARIAN Attorne for Plaintiff, PAUL ALE Michael Malk, E312. MICHAEL MAL ESE, APC 1180 S. Beverl Drive, uite 302 Los Angeles A 90035 Telephene: g310) 203-0016 Facmmile: 10) 499?5210 Email: Attorne for Plaintiff, PAUL . ALE FPDOCS 31307905.? PROOF OF SERVICE