WILLIAM F. WRIGHT SBN 109470

 

JULIE A. DOUMIT - SBN 272574 
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM F. WRIGHT ?upenor Court Dr Lial
1731 I Street, Suite 250 Sacrament-a
Sacramento, California 95811 
Telephone: (916) 442-8614 06! 23? 2015
Facsimile: (916) 4426679 aha??
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jovan Bray, By I 
Elisha Kranenburg, and Michelle Brown 5353 Number:
34=201 5-301 964
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
JOVAN BRAY, ELISHA KRANENBURG, CASE NO:
and MICHELLE BROWN, 
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiffs, 
(Unlimited Civil Case)
'vs. 

ESHAI CORPORATION, DBA COURIER 
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, and DOES 1 
through 20, inclusive, 

Defendants. 
I
Plaintiffs Jovan Bray, Elisha Kranenburg, and Michelle Brown allege:
PARTIES
1. Defendant Eshai Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of The State

of Georgia, and does business under the name of Courier Distribution Services (CDS). Said

defendant is hereafter referred to as 

2. The names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of
defendant Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sues said
defendants by such ?ctitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that each
of the defendants designated herein as a "Doe? is responsible in some manner, either intentionally,

negligently, in strict liability, for breach of warranty, or otherwise, for the events and happenings

 

 

Complaint for Damages

famia,

reputy

 



herein referred to and caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiffs, as herein alleged.
Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of the ?ctitiously named
defendants when ascertained.

3. The use of the term "Defendants" herein shall mean CD8 and Does 1?20.

4. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent and employee
of each of the remaining Defendants and was acting at all times within the purpose and scope of said
agency and employment, and acting in concert.

VENUE AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

5. Venue is proper in Sacramento County because the acts alleged herein occurred in
the County of Sacramento, in the State of California.

6. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. At some point prior to September 2015, Defendants entered into a contract with an
Amazon entity to provide delivery services in the Sacramento area for Amazon Prime. Defendants
established an office at 2934 Ramana Avenue in Sacramento. The early hires at said location
included dispatch managers, including plaintiff Jovan Bray. Jovan Bray received training in which
he was instructed about the Amazon Prime three hour package delivery deadlines and his role in
dispatching drivers.

8. Plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown were hired as drivers. Deliveries
started on or about October 28, 2015. The events alleged in this Complaint concern unlawful wage
payments to the drivers after October 28, 2015, and the subsequent wrongful termination of ovan
Bray because of his objections to the unlawful payments.

9. During plaintiffs? employment, provisions of the California Labor Code and
Institutional Welfare Commission governed payment of wages to plaintiffs, as well as the other

drivers and employees. These statutes and/or wage orders included:

a. Labor Code Section 204(d), which requires payment of wages within 7 days
of the payroll period.
b. Labor Code Section 351 which requires payment of tips to employees. For

 

Complaint for Damages

 





 

 

drivers, tips were collected by Amazon and sent to CD8.

0. Labor Code Section 226, which requires accurate wage statements.

d. Labor Code Section 203 which provides for waiting time penalties for up to
30 days for non-payment of wages.

10. Defendants did not comply with these statutes concerning drivers. Defendants failed
to pay drivers on time, failed to account for tips, failed to pay all tips, failed to pay overtime wages,
and failed to provide accurate wage statements. This non-payment of wages led to many complaints
by drivers. Many drivers asked ovan Bray to contact the corporate of?ces in Georgia to complain
about non?payment of wages. ovan Bray did, on several occasions, make telephone calls to the
George headquarters.

1 1 . On or about December 22, 2015, despite his good performance, defendants terminated

Jovan Bray's employment in retaliation for his complaints. There was no legitimate non?

discriminatory reason to terminate his employment.

12. At the end of December 2015, plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown were

laid off. Other drivers continued to work for defendants. Plaintiffs were informed that they did so

through April 2016, when Amazon cancelled the CDS contract.

13. Defendants' drivers were also denied rest and meal breaks. Drivers worked morning
and afternoon shifts. They had to arrive one half?hour early for the 8 hour shifts. Thirty (30)
minutes was deducted for lunch, resulting in 8 hours' pay plus overtime worked. However, due to
their busy delivery schedule, drivers were unable to take rest or meal breaks. This resulted in a loss
of 30 minutes pay per day, which would have been at overtime rate.

PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT ALLEGATIONS

14. The Private Attorney General Act as set forth in California Labor Code
sections 2698, et seq. is, and was at all times relevant herein, applicable to plaintiffs? employment
with defendants.

15. Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(a), any provision of the Labor Code which
provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development

Agency for violations of the Labor Code may, as an alternative, be recovered through

 

Complaint for Damages

 



civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or
former employees pursuant to the procedures outlined in Labor Code section 2699.3.

16. Plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown were employed by defendants and
the alleged wage violations were committed against them during their employment. Elisha
Kranenburg and Michelle Brown are therefore aggrieved employees as de?ned by Labor Code
section 2699(c). Other current and former employees are also aggrieved employees in that one or
more of the alleged violations were also committed against them during their time of employment
with defendants.

17. Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(f), the civil penalty recoverable in a PAGA
action is that which is provided for by the Labor Code or, where no civil penalty is specifically
provided, one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial
violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each
subsequent violation.

18. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(g), an aggrieved employee may
recover the civil penalty on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees
against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed. Furthermore, any employee
who prevails in any such action shall be entitled to an award ofreasonable attorney's fees and costs.

19. Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3, an aggrieved employee may pursue a civil
action arising under the PAGA after the following requirements have been met:

a. The aggrieved employee shall give written notice by certified mail to the
LWDA and the employer (hereinafter ?Employee's Notice") of the specific
provisions of the California Labor Code alleged to have been violated,
including the facts and theories to support the alleged violations;

b. The LWDA shall provide notice (hereinafter Notice") to the
employer and the aggrieved employee by certified mail that it does not intend
to investigate the alleged violation within 30 calendar days of the postmark
date of the Employee's Notice. Upon receipt of the LWDA's Notice, or if the

LWDA does not provide notice within 33 calendar days of the postmark date

 

Complaint for Damages

 






 

 

of the Employee's Notice, the aggrieved employee may commence a civil
action pursuant to California Labor section 2699 to recover civil penalties in
addition to any other penalties to which the employee may be entitled.

On February 9, 2015, Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown provided written notice by
certified mail to the LWDA and defendants of the specific provisions of the California Labor Code
alleged to have been violated by defendants, including the facts and theories to support the alleged
violations.

20. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, more than 33 days have passed since
plaintiffs provided the Employee?s Notice, and the LWDA has not provided written notice to Elisha
Kranenburg and Michelle Brown of its intention to investigate the alleged violations. Accordingly,
Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown have satis?ed the administrative prerequisites under Labor
Code section 2699.3 to bring a civil action to recover penalties against defendants, in addition to
other remedies, for violations of California Labor Code sections 201, 201, 226.7, 510 and 512.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7(3) and 512 Against All Defendants
bv Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown

21. Plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown individually and on behalf of
aggrieved employees reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 20 above as though
fully set forth herein, except as said paragraphs are inconsistent with the allegations of this cause of
action.

22. Labor Code section 226.7(a) provides that it is unlawful for an employer to deny an
employee a meal or rest period required by an applicable law or order of the IWC.

23. At all times relevant herein, Labor Code section 512(a) and IWC Order No. 9-2001
provided that an employer must provide employees with a meal period of not less than thirty minutes
for each five hour work period.

24. During the relevant time period, the applicable wage order(s) further provided that
an employer shall permit employees to take at least a ten minute break in the middle of every four

hour work period.

 

Complaint for Damages

 





 

 

25. During the relevant period of time, defendants failed provide Elisha Kranenburg and
Michelle Brown, and the other current and former employees, with meal and/or rest breaks as
required by the Labor Code and IWC Orders.

26. The civil penalty recoverable by an aggrieved employee in a PAGA action for
violations of Labor Code section 512 or any order of the IWC is set forth in at Labor Code section
558. Labor Code section 558 provides a civil penalty of ?fty dollars for each underpaid
employee for each pay period which the employee was underpaid for any initial violation, and (2)
one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee
was underpaid for each subsequent violation as well as an amount suf?cient to recover underpaid
wages.

27. Labor Code section 2699(g) further provides any employee who prevails in any action
shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

28. Wherefore, plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown have been damaged as

set forth above and request relief as hereafter provided. They also request the civil penalty, attorney's

?fees and costs recoverable in a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of

themselves and other current and former employees.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of California Labor Code Section 510 Against All Defendants bv Elisha
Kranenbura and Michelle Brown
29. Plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown, individually and on behalf of
aggrieved employees, reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 28 above as though fully
set forth herein, except as said paragraphs are inconsistent with the allegations fo this cause of action.
3 0. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 21 8 authorizes employees
to sue directly for any wages or penalty due to them under the California Labor Code.
31. At all times herein set forth, California Labor Code section 510 provides that
employees shall be compensated for all overtime work performed at one and one-half (l times
the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and at two (2)

times the regular rate of pay hours worked in excess of 12 hours a day.

 

Complaint for Damages

 

 

 

32. During plaintiffs' employment, plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown, and
the other aggrieved employees, were required to report to work 30 minutes prior to the start of their
8 hour shifts and were paid for only 8 hours due, to the deduction of 30 minutes for a meal periods
drivers did not receive. Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees shoul dhave been paid for 8 1/2 hours
with the 1/2 hour at overtime.

33. The civil penalty recoverable by aggrieved employees in a PAGA for violations of
Labor Code section 510 are set forth in Labor Code section 2699(f)(2). Labor Code section 2699(f)
provides a civil penalty of (1) one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay
period for the initial violation, and (2) two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per
pay period for each subsequent violation.

34. Labor Code section 2699(g) further provides any employee who prevails in any action
shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

35. Plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown, and other aggrieved employees,
have been damaged as set forth above and request relief as hereafter provided. Plaintiffs also hereby
request the civil penalty, attorney's fees and costs recoverable in a civil action brought by aggrieved
employees on behalf of themselves and other current and former employees of defendants.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Timely Pav Wages Owed in Violation of Labor Code Sections 200. Et 
Against All Defendants bv Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown

36. Plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown individually and on behalf of
aggrieved employees, reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 35 above as though fully
set forth herein, except as said paragraphs are inconsistent with the allegations of this cause of action.

3 7. Labor Code section 204 provides that all wages owed are due and payable twice each
calendar month.

38. During the relevant time period, defendants failed to pay Elisha Kranenburg and
Michelle Brown, and the other drivers, earned wages in full, and in a timely fashion, as required by
the Labor Code. This included failure to timely pay wages owed and tips earned.



 

Complaint for Damages

 






 

 

39. The civil penalty recoverable by an aggrieved employee in a PAGA for violations of
Labor Code section 204 are set forth at Labor Code section 2699(f)(2). Labor Code section 2699(t)
provides a civil penalty of (1) one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay
period for the initial violation, and (2) two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per
pay period for each subsequent violation.

40. Labor Code section 2699( g) further provides any employee who prevails in any action
shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney?s fees and costs.

41. Plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown, and other aggrieved employees,
have been damaged as set forth above and request relief as hereafter provided. Plaintiffs also hereby
request the civil penalty, attorney's fees and costs recoverable in a civil action brought by an
aggrieved employee on behalf of themselves and other current and former employees of ESHAI
Corporation dba Courier Distribution Systems.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination in Violation of Labor Code Sections
200, Et Seq. Against All Defendants by Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown

42. Plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown, individually and on behalf of
aggrieved employees, reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 - 41 above as though fuliy
set forth herein, except as said paragraphs are inconsistent with the allegations of this cause of action.

43. Labor Code section 201 requires an employer, when discharging an employee, to
immediately pay the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge.

44. During the relevant time period, defendants failed to pay plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg,
Michelle Brown, and the other drivers, all earned but unpaid wages at the time of discharge.

45. Labor Code section 203(a) provides a civil penalty of up to 30 days wages.

46. The civil penalty recoverable by an aggrieved employee in a PAGA for violations of
Labor Code section 204 are set forth at Labor Code section 2699(f)(2). Labor Code section 2699(f)
provides a civil penalty of (1) one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay
period for the initial violation, and (2) two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per

pay period for each subsequent violation.

 

Complaint for Damages

 



47. Labor Code section 2699(g) further provides any employee who prevails in any action
shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs

48. Plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown and the other aggrieved employees
have been damaged as set forth above and request relief as hereafter provided. Plaintiffs also hereby
request the civil penalty, attorney?s fees and costs recoverable in a civil action brought by an
aggrieved employee on behalf of themselves and other current and former drivers employed by
defendants.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements Violation of Labor Code Section
226(a) Against All Defendants by Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown

49. Plaintiffs Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown, individually and on behalf of
aggrieved employees, reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 48 above as though fully
set forth herein, except as said paragraphs are inconsistent with the allegations of this cause of action.

50. Pursuant to Labor Code section 226(a), every employer shall furnish each of his or
her employees an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, amongst other things, gross
wages, hours worked, applicable hourly rates, the number of piece-rate units earned where
applicable, and all deductions.

51. During the relevant time period, Defendants intentionally and willfully failed to
provide accurate itemized wage statements to Elisha Kranenburg and Michelle Brown, and the other
current and former drivers. Defendants? actions violate Labor Code section 226(a).

52. The civil penalty recoverable by an aggrieved employee in a PAGA action for
violations of California Labor Code section 226 is set forth at Labor Code section 226.3. Labor
Code section 226.3 provides a civil penalty of (1) two hundred and ?fty dollars ($250) per employee
per violation for the initial violation, and (2) one thousand dollars ($1,000) per employee for each
subsequent failure to provide an accurate wage statement.

53. Labor Code section 2699(g) further provides any employee who prevails in any action
shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.



 

Complaint for Damages

 






 

 

54. Wherefore, Elisha Kranenburg, Michelle Brown, and the other drivers, have been
damaged as set forth above and request relief as hereafter provided. They also hereby request the
civil penalty, attorney?s fees and costs recoverable in a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee
on behalf of themselves and other current and former drivers.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Termination in Violation of Public Policy by Jovan Bray Against All Defendants

55. Plaintiff Jovan Bray repleads and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1?13.

56. It is the public policy in the State of California that employers comply with the
California Labor Code. Further, California Labor Code sections 232.5 and 1102.5 provide that an
employee has rights under the Labor Code and that the employer shall not discriminate or retaliate
against an employee for asserting those rights.

57. The termination of Jovan Bray?s employment by defendants on or about December
22, 2015, was in retaliation for his requests that employees receive their pay. This was contrary to
the above public policies of the State of California.

5 8. As a proximate result of the above described conduct of defendants, and each of them,
plaintiff ovan Bray was prevented from attending to plaintiffs usual occupation, and plaintiff is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that he will thereby be prevented from attending his usual
occupation for a period in the future in an amount according to proof at trial.

59. As a further proximate result of the above described conduct of defendants, and each
of them, plaintiff Jovan Bray was hurt and injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining
emotional injury and shock, and injury to his nervous system and person, all of which said injuries
have caused and continue to cause plaintiff great mental, emotional, and nervous pain and suffering
in an amount according to proof.







 

Complaint for Damages

10

 

423mm



PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants as follows:
As to First, Second, Third, Fourth. and Fifth Causes of Action for Defendants Elisha

Kranenburg and Michelle Brown

1. For civil damages and/or statutory penalties, including those available pursuant to the
California Labor Code;
2. For statutory attorney's fees and costs, including those available for non?payment of

wages owed, and attorney?s fees available under 2699(f);
3. For pre-judgment interest;

As to the Sixth Cause of Action for ovan Bray

4. For lost income and wage bene?ts according to proof;
5. For general damages according to proof;
6. For pre?judgment interest;

As to All Causes of Action
7. For costs of suit; and

8. For such other relief as the court may deem pro er.

f? .

DATED: June 22,2016 

JULIE DOW 1., 

 

 

Complaint for Damages

11