. 11153 1:31:11 ?26 .1 5'27 m: 132:8 CW RISE FIRM, PC . JANA M. MOSER (SBN 281073) . 13m? 01;" OTCa'IfornIa MEGHAN K. MAHER (SBN 317908) 0 ?3""99'88 5900 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2600 . Los Angeles, California 90036-5013 AUG 2 8 2018 Telephone: (310) 728-6588 Sherri . sic.- Facsimile: -(310) 728?6560 jana@riselawf1rm.com By .91] Deputy Attorneys for Plaintiff JOSE CEJA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES JOSE CEJA, an individual, Case No. BC711205 Plaintiff, [Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Daniel S. Murphy, Dept. 32] vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES UNITED BUSINESS FREIGHT . - FORWARDERS LLC, a New Jersey limited 1. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR llability corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, CODE 6310; inclusive, A 2. RETALIATION 1N VIOLATION OF LABOR Defendants. CODE 23253 3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 1102.5; 4. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY FOR JURY Complaint Filed: June 21, 2018 $29 Trial Date: None Set 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES . RISE LAW FIRM. PC G25 5:??28 Q: Plaintiff Jose Ceja (?Plaintiff?) hereby brings this First Amended Complaint against Defendant United Business Freight Forwarders LLC (the ?Company? or ?Defendant?) and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and alleges the following on knowledge as to himself and his known acts, and on information and belief as to all other matters: I. PARTIES 1. At all material times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was an individual performing work for Defendant United Business Freight Forwarders LLC within Los Angeles County. The unlawful conduct alleged herein occurred in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned herein was, a resident of Los Angeles County. 2. At all material times mentioned herein, the Company was a New Jersey limited liability corporation. 3. - Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such ?ctitious names. Plaintiff will amend this First Amended Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of such Defendants when the same has been ascertained. Each of the ?ctitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts complained of herein. Unlessotherwise stated, all references to named Defendants shall include DOE Defendants as well. 11. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court because all of the claims alleged herein arose in Los Angeles County and all of the Defendants were and/or are residents of Los Angeles County or are doing or did business in Los Angeles County, and/or their principal place of business is in Los Angeles County,'in each case, at all times relevant herein. 5. The amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the sum of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. -1- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM, PC .325 (315.1 .126 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Plaintiff worked for the Company as a driver from on or about January 22, 2018 to April 20, 2018. Plaintiff?s schedule, hours, and various work messages were communicated to him via text message from the Company?s dispatch team, with Jen (last name unknown) acting as the dispatcher on Wednesdays, and Geo (last name unknown) acting as the dispatcher on Thursdays and Fridays. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff earned $14.00 per hour with bene?ts including a potential bonus and health insurance. 7. The Company provides delivery services for Amazon through a ?eet of drivers and - delivery vehicles. Drivers are responsible for loading packages into his or her assigned vehicle, fueling the vehicle as necessary, and delivering 40 to 50 packages per hour. Consistent with these rigorous delivery goals, the Company advertises driver positions for ?candidates who enjoy working in a fast- paced environment.? In practice, the Company?s ?fast-paced environment? subjects drivers to deplorable conditions in which they are not given time to use the restroom, take breaks, or take lunch; they are instructed not to stop to use the restroom; they are instructed to bring empty bottles to urinate into while making deliveries; theyare advised to speed; they are instructed not to wear seatbelts to maximize their delivery rate; and they are taught how to trick vehicle sensors into registering that the driver is wearing a seatbelt. . 8. Not surprisingly, the delivery vehicles reek .of urine because drivers are forced to follow Company policy and relieve themselves in bottles rather than risk their delivery rates by taking the time to use a restroom facility. These bottles of urine are frequently left in the vehicles for drivers to ?nd in ensuing shifts, and are littered around the facility in which drivers pick up their delivery vehicle for the day. It was common for Plaintiff tofind his assigned vehicle had a bottle of urine in the passenger seat or bottles of urine in the rear. 9. Disgusted by the smell and presence of urine, Plaintiff complained about this issue to numerous Company representatives. Plaintiff complained to the person who assigned delivery vehicles to drivers each morning on at least two occasions. He documented the issue in ?van logs? (used by -2- AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC e35 012:1. 5526 $.27 ~28 (3:221 drivers to record issues with the vehicle) on at least three occasions and turned those van logs in to the dispatchers. Plaintiff complained in person to his dispatcher, Geo, about the urine on at least two occasions; Geo responded that he would report the issue to his supervisor. Despite his numerous complaints, however, the urine bottles and smell continued unabated. 10. From the inception of Plaintiff? 3 employment with the Company, he was criticized for being ?too slow.? Indeed, even though Plaintiff was hired to work ?ve days per week, he was only assigned two to three shifts per week because he was ?too slow? and therefore ?not compatible with a fulltime position.? The dispatchers prodded Plaintiffto increase his rate, texting him messages like ?Pick it up bro you are falling behind,? ?You almost done?? and ?You are falling behind pick it up you got one of the smallest route [sic] and are falling behind.? When Plaintiff explained that one reason for his slow delivery rate was needing to stop and use the restroom, the dispatchers repeatedly advised Plaintiff to ?hold? his urine or wait to use the restroom until after his deliveries were completed. When Plaintiff called the dispatchers to request a short break to use the restroom, these requests were routinely denied. Eventually, Plaintiff developed a urinary tract infection due his inability to take restroom breaks. From that point on, Plaintiff resolved?to use the restroom when he needed to?this, in turn, caused the Company to continue to criticize him for being ?too slow.? 11. _On March 4, 2018, Plaintiff informed the dispatchers that he was unable to take his daily 30-minute lunch breaks due to the rigorous delivery rate requirements. In a series of messages sent to the dispatcher on duty, Plaintiff asked whether the Company was ?deducting lunch time,? explained that never take a lunch break at all,? and requested that he be paid for the time he spent working rather than taking the lunch break. Notwithstanding that complaint, the Company did nothing to alleviate the matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff found himself in a work environment in which he was forced to routinely skip lunch and rest breaks. 12. On April 15, 2018, Plaintiff reported to his usual dispatching center in Commerce, California. When he arrived, he was informed that the Commerce center did not have enough work for him and was instructed to drive to a different dispatching center in Rosemead, Califomia?despite the fact that he had been hired to work out of the Commerce center and had never been asked to work from -3- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC ?.25 W26 27 Eh 112m another center previously. Plaintiff asked the dispatcher on duty, Jen, whether he would be reimbursed for the gas and mileage to drive from Commerce to Rosemead; the dispatcher laughed in response and refused this request. Because Plaintiff?s schedule was being changed dramatically without notice, and because the Company refused to reimburse him for the gas and mileage he was to incur due to its mistake, Plaintiff refused to report to the Rosemead location that day. 13. In retribution for his myriad complaints and refusal to drive to Rosemead without reimbursement, the Company did not schedule Plaintiff to work for any date after April 15 and, on April 20, the Company terminated Plaintiff?s employment. 14. Shortly after Plaintiff learned he had been terminated, he called the main manager at the Commerce facility, Jorge Reynoso. At ?rst, Reynoso refused to answer Plaintiff?s calls; accordingly, Plaintiff emailed a Company manager, Ivan Mercado, for assistance. Later, when Reynoso ?nally did answer, Plaintiff asked why he had been terminated. Reynoso laughed in response and refused to give an answer. Plaintiff then stated this wasunfair, particularly because the Company had unlawfully required drivers to speed, refused to give lunch and rest breaks, forced drivers to urinate into bottles, and refused to alleviate the smell and presence of urine in delivery vehicles. Again, Reynoso laughed at Plaintiff and told him to ?go get a lawyer.? Managing Agents 15. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 6-14 above, was performed or rati?ed by managing agents of the Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan ?Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown) (collectively, the ?Managing Agents?). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the Company?s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making signi?cant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justi?es an award of punitive damages. 16. In committing the foregoing'acts as set forth above in paragraphs 6-I4 above, the Managing Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff?s right to be free from unlawful retaliation and -4- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC 10 ll wrongful termination. 17. In Committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 6?14 above, the Managing Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff 3 rights.? 18. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 6-14 above, the Managing Agents intended to cause emotional and financial injury to Plaintiff. Speci?cally, the Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff?s employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress, or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiffs career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing. IV. CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 6310) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Against Defendant) 19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-18, inclusive, of this First Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 20. California Labor Code section 6310(b) prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for making bona ?de oral or written complaints to their employers regarding ?unsafe working conditions, or work practices.? Cal. Lab. Code 21. As set forth above, Plaintiff made bona ?de oral and written complaints to the Company about its unsafe working conditions and work practices. Thereafter, the Company retaliated against Plaintiff for making those complaints by refusing to assign him to a fulltime schedule and terminating his employment. The Company?s conduct therefore violated Labor Code section 6310(b). 22. As a proximate result of the Company?s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries, including nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, -5- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC 5.25 ?2126 $27 at "?28 GI: and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiff?s damages will be ascertained at trial. 23. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 6-14 above, was performed or rati?ed by managing agents of the Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the Company?s business operations, andeach exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making signi?cant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justi?es an award of punitive damages. 24. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in- paragraphs 6-14 above, the Managing Agents willfully disregardediPlaintiff?s right to be free from unlawful retaliation and wrongful termination. . 25. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 6-14 above, the Managing Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiffs rights. 26. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 6-14 above, the Managing Agents intended to cause emotional and ?nancial injury to Plaintiff. Speci?cally, the?Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff?s employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress, or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff?s career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing. 27. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. -6- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -. RISE LAW FIRM. PC G25 1111 1:126 1:1 527 SL228 Of V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 232.5) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Against Defendant) 28.. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-27, inclusive, of this First Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 29. California Labor Code section 232.5(c) prohibits employers from discharging, disciplining, or otherwise discriminating against an employee who discloses information about the employer?s working conditions. See Cal. Lab. Code 30. As set forth above, Plaintiff repeatedly disclosed information to the Company regarding the Company?s working conditions. In retaliation for making those disclosures, the Company refused to assign Plaintiff to a fulltime schedule and terminated his employment. The Company?s conduct therefore constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of California Labor Code section 31. As a proximate result of the Company?s conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost bene?ts, and other pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries, including nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiffs damages will be ascertained at trial. 32. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 6?14 above, was performed or rati?ed by managing agents of the Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the Company?s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making signi?cant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agent?s engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justifies an award of punitive damages. 33. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs 6-14 above, the Managing Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff? 3 right to be free from unlawful retaliation and -7- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC wrongful termination. 34. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 6-14 above, the Managing Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff?s rights. 35. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 6-l4 above, the Managing Agents intended to cause emotional and financial injury to Plaintiff. Speci?cally, the Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff?s employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress, or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiffs career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing. 36. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Vi. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code 1102.5) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Against Defendant) 37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-36, inclusive, of this First Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 38.. California Labor Code section 1102.5(b) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for ?disclosing information . . . to a person with authority over the employee . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.? Cal. Lab. Code 39. California Labor Code section 1102.5(0) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for ?refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.? Cal. Lab. Code -8- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM, PC 10 11 13 14 40. As set forth in paragraphs 6-14 above, Plaintiff repeatedly disclosed information that he had reaSOnable cause to believe constituted a violation of state or federal law, including OSHA (29 C.F.R. 1910 et seq), (Labor Code 6300 et seq), California Speed Laws (Vehicle Code 22348 et seq.), California Labor Code 512 (?Meal periods; requirements . . Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 9-2001 (?Transportation Industry?), and California Labor Code 2802 (?Indemnification for employee?s expenses and losses in discharging duties. . Plaintiff also refused to participate in certain illegal conduct, including speeding, driving without a seatbelt, and creating a hazardous work environment by urinating into bottles in the Company?s delivery vehicles. In response, the Company refused to assign Plaintiff to a fulltime schedule and terminated his employment. The Company?s conduct therefore constituted unlawful retaliation on account of Plaintiff?s protected activity in violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5(b) and 41. As a proximate result of the conduct of the Company, Plaintiff has suffered and will I continue to suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries, including nightmares, nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiff?s damages will be ascertained at trial. 42. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 6-14 above, was performed or rati?ed by managing agents of the Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the Company?s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making signi?cant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justi?es an award of punitive damages. 43. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs 6?14 above, the Managing Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff?s right to be free from unlawful retaliation and wrongful termination. -9- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC 44. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 6-14 above, the Managing Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardshipin conscious disregard for his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff?s rights. 45. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 6?14 above, the Managing Agents intended to?cause emotional and ?nancial injury to Plaintiff. Speci?cally, the Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff? employment unlawfully with the intent to cause him severe emotional distress, or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff?s career, livelihood, and his emotional wellbeing. 46. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Against Defendant) 47. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-46, inclusive, of this First Amended Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 48. The~ Company terminated Plaintiff?s employment in violation of important and well- established public policies, set forth in various state statutes and provisions including, but not limited .to, California Labor Code sections 6310, 232.5, and 1102.5. 49. As a proximate result of the conduct of the Company, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in terms of lost wages, lost bonuses, lost benefits, and other pecuniary loss according to proof. Plaintiff has also suffered and will continue to suffer physical and emotional injuries, including nightmares, nervousness, humiliation, depression, anguish, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, fatigue, and anxiety. The amount of Plaintiffs damages will be ascertained at trial. I 50. The Company?s conduct, as described in paragraphs 6-14 above, was performed or -10- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC .24 p.25 Can 41:26 q. M27 Eli ?"28 on rati?ed by managing agents of the Company, including, but not limited to, Jorge Reynoso, Ivan Mercado, Geo (last name unknown), and Jen (last name unknown). The Managing Agents were each responsible for overseeing a substantial portion of the Company?s business operations, and each exercised substantial discretionary authority over vital aspects of such operations including making signi?cant decisions that affect the Company?s internal policies. The Managing Agents engaged in malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive conduct that justi?es an award of punitive damages. 51. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth above in paragraphs 6-14 above, the Managing Agents willfully disregarded Plaintiff?s right to be free from unlawful retaliation and wrongful termination. 52. In committing the foregoing acts as set forth in paragraphs 6-14 above, the Managing Agents acted despicably and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard for his rights under California law. The Managing Agents? conduct demonstrates a callous indifference for the law and Plaintiff?s rights. 53. In committing the foregoingacts as set forth in paragraphs 6-14 above, the Managing Agents intended to cause emotional and ?nancial injury to Plaintiff. Speci?cally, the Managing Agents terminated Plaintiff?s employment unlawfully with the intent to causehim severe emotional distress, _or at least without regard for the consequences on Plaintiff?s career, livelihood, and his emdtional wellbeing. 54. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. For general damages, including emotional distress damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such damages are available and not exceeding $250,000. 2. For special damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such damages are available and not exceeding $250,000. 3. For punitive damages, according to proof on each cause of action for which such -11- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- RISE LAW FIRM, PC . damages are available and not exceeding $500,000. 4. For a statutory penalty not exceeding $10,000 pursuant? to Labor Code sections 1102.501) and 1105. 5. For prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest according to law. 6. For reasonable attorneys? fees incurred in this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 7. For costs of suit incurred in this action. 8. For such other and further relief that the Court deems proper and just. Dated: August 28, 2018 RISE LAW FIRM, PC -12- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - RISE LAW FIRM. PC Eu M27 rev-28 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Jose Ceja hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action alleged herein in the First Amended Complaint for Damages. Dated: August 28, 2018 RISE FIRM, PC -13- JAN MOSER MEG K. MAHER for Plaintiff JOSE CEJA FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES RISE LAW FIRM. PC 9m? PROOF (JP-SERVICE County ofLos Angela's; S?ta?te'ozi? Ca1ifg3mi?a. I am :v0'ver the age of 18 210611101121 party to :t'he?within action; my business address .5900. Wii-slfnii're (Blvd-3;, Suite Califmjiia' 90036-5013. Oil AuiguS't 28,20] .8, I fhi?it; EDEOM DA MAQES . 02$ the-.interested- party-sits) by platii'n?g- a tat-ref ca?py ?iereor?i?inua se?a'le'd enve'liope?cg) :addzn?SSed a's A Nb?lzth Agmt; Inc 267 jS-?gi-?tegzao. Redd-mg CA 9600;]? I (HAND ubvmit?t-i?hg a= {rues-221'mid-ceorzlzeei' copy. eur- Above; I declare underpenalgofperjury undelthe lawsofthe State otCahfommlm lheaboxe is :t'li'til'fe and coucct Executed 91: Au gust :28: 201138;:111? LOS Angel?eA{Qalri?fom?i? Mimimli?a, Si 3 - v?M-wd .0 *w n-mcmw? "mm .