De Luna v. Albert Preciado and The Mortgage Guy

Alan Romero (SBN 249000)
1
Edward Wells (SBN 321696)
2 ROMERO LAW, APC
80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 880
3 Pasadena, CA 91101-2672
Telephone: (626) 396-9900
4
Facsimile: (626) 396-9990
5 Email: firm@romerolaw.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7
LUIS DE LUNA, FIDEL MELARA, and JOHN ZAMBRANA
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
LUIS DE LUNA, an individual; and FIDEL Case No.: 20STCV08687
11 MELARA, an individual; and JOHN
ZAMBRANA, an individual; SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
12
(1) Unpaid Minimum Wages (Lab. Code § 1197);
Plaintiffs;
13 (2) Failure to Pay Overtime (Lab. Code § 1198);
(3) Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked
14 vs.
(Lab. Code § 1198);
15 (4) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods
ALBERT PRECIADO, an individual; THE
Electronically Received 06/08/2021 05:59 PM
(Lab. Code §226.7);

MORTGAGE GUY, INC.; a California
16 (5) Waiting Time Penalties (Lab. Code §§ 201,
corporation; AMBIANCE REALTY, INC., a
203);
17 California corporation; DRIVEN
(6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation;
18 Statements (Lab. Code §226);
PRECIADO ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a
(7) Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
Tennessee limited liability company; and DOES
19 (Tameny Claim);
1-99, inclusive;
(8) Unlawful Retaliation (Lab. Code § 1102.5);
20
(9) Unlawful Retaliation (Lab. Code § 98.6);
Defendants.
21 (10) Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public
Policy;
22 (11) Violation of the Private Attorneys General
23
Act of 2004 (Lab. Code §2698, et al.)
24 Judge: Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon

Dept.: 36
25
26 COME NOW the Plaintiffs LUIS DE LUNA, FIDEL MELARA, and JOHN
27 ZAMBRANA (“Plaintiffs”) who hereby alleges the following allegations and facts in support of
28
1
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 their Complaint for Damages, and who hereby demand a speedy jury trial on all causes of action
2 stated herein as against ALBERT PRECIADO, an individual; THE MORTGAGE GUY, INC.; a
3 California corporation; AMBIANCE REALTY, INC., a California corporation; DRIVEN
4 ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; PRECIADO ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a
5 Tennessee limited liability company; and DOES 1-99, inclusive, (collectively “Defendants”).
6 NATURE OF THE CASE
7 1. Plaintiffs brings this action as against Defendants, and seeks damages for Defendants’
8 intentional, wrongful, and unlawful conduct related to, and arising out of, the employment of
9 Plaintiffs by Defendants, and/or other third parties on behalf of Defendants.
10 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
11 Jurisdiction and Venue
12 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiffs’ claims. Jurisdiction is
13 proper in this Court because the damages alleged exceed $25,000.

14 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO, in that he was,
15 upon information and belief, and during all relevant periods of time covered by this complaint, a
16 resident of the City of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, conducting the business
17 underlying this Complaint in the City of West Hollywood, in the County of Los Angeles.
18 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant THE MORTGAGE GUY, INC. in that
19 it was, upon information and belief, and during all relevant periods of time covered by this
20 complaint, a California corporation with its primary business location in the West Hollywood, in
21 the County of Los Angeles.
22 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant AMBIANCE REALTY, INC., in that
23 it was, upon information and belief, and during all relevant periods of time covered by this
24 complaint, a California corporation with its primary business location in the West Hollywood, in
26 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant PRECIADO ACQUISITIONS, LLC,
27 in that it was, upon information and belief, and during all relevant periods of time covered by this
28
2
1 complaint, a Tennessee corporation with its primary business location in the West Hollywood, in
3 7. Venue in this Court is proper in that Defendants reside in the County of Los Angeles.
4 Defendants’ wrongful and unlawful conduct also occurred in this judicial district.
5 The Plaintiffs
6 8. Plaintiff LUIS DE LUNA is, and was, at all relevant periods of time covered by this
7 complaint, a resident of the City of Monrovia, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
8 9. Plaintiff FIDEL MELARA is, and was, at all relevant periods of time covered by this
9 complaint, a resident of the City of Downey, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
10 10. Plaintiff JOHN ZAMBRANA is, and was, at all relevant periods of time covered by this
11 Complaint, a resident of the City of Winnetka, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
12 11. Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants.
13 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon alleges that all Defendants were the joint
14 employers of Plaintiffs.
15 The Defendants
16 13. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and thereupon allege, that during all relevant periods
17 of time covered by this complaint, Defendants maintained their principal place of business at 8581
18 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 83, West Hollywood, CA 90069, in the County of Los Angeles.
19 14. Defendants are in the real estate, mortgage, and personal coaching businesses.
20 15. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of those defendants sued herein as
21 DOES 1 through 99, inclusive, and therefore Plaintiffs sue said defendants by such fictitious names
22 and capacities. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities
23 of DOES 1 through 99, inclusive, when their true names and capacities have been ascertained.
24 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that each of these fictitiously named
25 defendants is responsible in some manner for the unlawful actions, acts, and/or omissions herein
26 alleged, and that the damages herein alleged were directly and proximately caused by such
27 conduct.
28
3
1 16. Defendants all were employers within the California Industrial Welfare Commission
2 Industrial Wage Order No. 4 in that they directly or indirectly employed and exercised control
3 over wages, hours or working conditions of Plaintiffs and others.
4 Relationships Between Defendants
5 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that Defendants, and each of
6 them, were at all times mentioned herein the agents, servants, and employees of each other, or
7 otherwise were acting with the full knowledge and consent of each other. Plaintiffs are further
8 informed and believe, and upon such basis and belief allege, that in doing all of the things alleged
9 in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, were acting within the scope and authority of
10 their agency, servitude, or employment, and were acting with the express and/or implied
11 knowledge, permission and consent of one another. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe,
12 and upon such basis and belief alleges, that Defendants learned of, ratified, and/or approved the
13 wrongful conduct of its agents and/or employees identified in this Complaint as having engaged
14 in wrongful conduct.
15 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all relevant times,
16 Defendants, and each of them, including each of said fictitiously named DOE defendants, were
17 business entities or individuals who owned, controlled, or managed the business which has
18 damaged Plaintiffs, and are each therefore individually liable to Plaintiffs.
19 19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all relevant times,
20 Defendants, and each of them, were in some fashion, by contract or otherwise, the successor,
21 assignor, indemnitor, guarantor, or third-party beneficiary of one or more of the remaining
22 Defendants, and at all relevant times to Plaintiffs’ claims alleged herein, were acting within that
23 capacity. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants, and each of them, assumed the liabilities of the
24 other Defendants, by virtue of the fact that each to some degree, wrongfully received and/or
25 wrongfully benefited from the flow of assets from the other Defendants, to the detriment of
26 Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further allege that by wrongfully receiving and/or benefiting from
27 Defendants’ assets, and in the consummation of such transactions, a de facto merger of the
28
4
1 Defendants, and each of them, resulted, such that Defendants, and each of them, may be treated as
2 one for purposes of this Complaint.
3 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all relevant times
4 mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the partners, agents, servants, employees,
5 joint venturors, or co-conspirators of each other defendant, and that each defendant was acting
6 within the course, scope, and authority of such partnership, agency, employment, joint venture, or
7 conspiracy, and that each defendant, directly or indirectly, authorized, ratified, and approved the
8 acts of the remaining Defendants, and each of them.
9 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
10 21. Plaintiffs exhausted all administrative remedies upon with their California Private
11 Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), by filing a PAGA Claim with the California Workplace
12 Development Agency (“LWDA”) on March 2, 2020 and prosecuting this lawsuit in the Los
13 Angeles Superior Court at least sixty five (65) days hence, to wit: on or after May 6, 2020.
14 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15 22. Plaintiffs were the employees of Defendants, and all of them.
16 23. Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO, by and through his Co-Defendants operates a business
17 via social media where he charges other people vast sums of money, sometimes upwards tens of
18 thousands of dollars, so he can teach them how to be rich. This absurd business model results in
19 his clients, who pay him for personal coaching, being separated from their money to pay for a
20 lavish lifestyle which Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO flaunts on social media accounts, such as
21 Instagram. Under this business model, nobody gets rich except for Defendants.
22 24. Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO maintains this business model as a type of Ponzi scheme,
23 where new clients put in new money to finance the lifestyle and social media activities that lure in
24 new and unsuspecting victims.
25 25. Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO, while posting pictures of himself on social media with
26 his financed Ferraris, Rolls Royces, and Lamborghinis, secretly was in crushing debt and was
27
28
5
1 unable to even pay his back taxes. This fact was concealed from his personal coaching victims
2 who were paying Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO to teach them how to become rich.
3 26. Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO provides nothing of value to his personal coaching
4 victims.
5 27. Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO would sometimes take personal coaching clients who
6 were paying him hundreds or thousands of dollars to learn how to become rich, when in fact
7 Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO is flat broke.
8 28. Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO’s financial troubles are such that can’t pay his employee
9 and he can’t pay his taxes. Instead he elects to pay for his financed Ferrari in order to mislead new
10 victims about his true financial situation.
11 29. Despite being flat broke and in crushing debt, unable to pay his taxes, Defendant ALBERT
12 PRECIADO presently charges prospective victims up to $20,000 per month for a “monthly
13 membership subscription.”
14 30. Additionally, Defendants, while representing themselves to past, current, and future
15 victims as extraordinarily wealthy, were unable to pay minimum wage, overtime, or payroll taxes
16 for their employees.
17 31. Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO is only able to afford his fake multi-millionaire lifestyle
18 on social media by paying his employees less than minimum wage, forcing them to work 7 days a
19 week without proper pay, and not paying payroll taxes. This is the exact type of employer that the
20 Labor Code exists to stop.
21 32. Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO and his spouse, Silvia Preciado, were highly abusive to
22 all their employees, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs.
23 33. Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO forced Plaintiffs to work for each of the other
24 Defendants, which he controlled. Defendant ALBERT PRECIADO also forced Plaintiffs to work
25 on personal tasks for him, causing them to be his personal employees in addition to employees of
26 the other Defendants.
27
28
6
1 34. Plaintiffs were terminated for complaining about Defendants’ violations of the California
2 Labor Code, precipitating this lawsuit.
3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
4 UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES
5 (LABOR CODE § 1197)
6 (All Plaintiffs as Against All Defendants)
7 35. Plaintiffs reallege, and incorporate herein by their reference, each and every allegation
8 contained in the foregoing Paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. Further, all
9 allegations set forth in this cause of action are pled upon information and belief, unless otherwise
10 stated.
11 36. Pursuant to Lab. Code § 1197, payment of less than the minimum wage fixed by the
12 commission is unlawful.
13 37. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants within the State of
14 California. Defendants were required to compensate Plaintiffs at the minimum wage, but failed to
15 carry out their duties and responsibilities as an employer imposed under the laws and regulations
16 of the State of California and breached this duty by failing to pay Plaintiffs a minimum wage.
17 38. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants have illegally treated Plaintiffs and other current
18 and former employees similarly situated, as employees exempt from the protections of the State
19 of California’s minimum wage protections.
20 39. In violation of state law, Defendants have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their
21 obligations to compensate Plaintiffs for all minimum ages earned and all hours worked. As a direct
22 result, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial loses related to the use and
23 enjoyment of such wages, lost interest on such wages, and expenses and attorney’s fees in seeking
24 to compel Defendants to fully perform their obligations under state law, all to their respective
25 damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial, but in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction
26 of this Court. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein knowingly and willfully, with the
27 wrongful and deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to
28
7
1 recover nominal, actual, compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages in the amounts
2 according to proof at time of trial, but in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.
3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
4 FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION
5 (LAB. CODE § 1198, et seq.)
10 stated.
11 41. Pursuant to Industrial Welfare Commission Order 7-90, California Code of Regulations,
12 Title 8, Chapter 5, § 11070, and Labor Code §§ 200, 226, and 1198, at all times relevant hereto,
13 Defendants were required to compensate Plaintiffs for all overtime, which is calculated at one and
14 one-half (1 ½ ) times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day
15 and/or forty (40) hours per week, and for the first eight (8) hours on the seventh consecutive work
16 day; with double time after eight (8) hours on the seventh day of any work week, or after 12 hours
17 in any workday.
18 42. Pursuant to Industrial Welfare Commission Order 7-98, California Code of Regulations,
19 Title 8, Chapter 5, § 11070, and Labor Code §§ 200, 226, and 1198, as of January 1, 1998,
20 Defendants were required to compensate Plaintiffs for all overtime, which is calculated as one and
21 one-half (1 ½) times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per
22 week, and after the first eight (8) hours on the seventh consecutive work day.
23 43. Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 510, and 1198, and California Code of
24 Regulations, Title 8, Chapter 5, § 11070, on and after January 1, 2000, Defendants were required
25 to compensate Plaintiffs for all overtime, which is calculated at one and one-half (1 ½) times the
26 regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day and/or forty (40) hours
27
28
8
1 per week, and for the first eight (8) hours on the seventh day of any work week, or after 12 hours
2 in any workday.
3 44. Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees entitled to the protections of Industrial Welfare
4 Commission Orders 7-80 and 7-98, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 11070, and Labor
5 Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 510, and 1198. During the course of Plaintiffs’ employment, Defendants
6 failed to compensate Plaintiffs for overtime hours worked as required under the aforementioned
7 labor regulations.
8 45. Under the aforementioned wage orders, statutes, and regulations, Plaintiffs are entitled to
9 one and one half (1 ½) times and /or double their regular rate of pay for overtime work performed
10 during the three (3) years preceding the filing of this Complaint based on appropriate calculations
11 of the total remuneration for each workweek.
13 obligations to compensate Plaintiffs for all wage earned and all hours worked. As a direct result,
14 Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment
15 of such wages, lost interest on such wages, and expenses and attorney’s fees in seeking to compel
16 Defendants to fully perform their obligation under state law, all to their respective damage in
17 amounts according to proof at time of trial, but in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction of this
18 Court. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein knowingly and willfully, with the wrongful
19 and deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiffs, from improper motives amounting in malice, and in
20 conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to recover nominal, actual,
21 compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial,
22 but in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.
23 47. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an
24 amount according to proof at time of trial, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this
25 Court.
26 48. Defendants’ conduct described herein violates Lab. Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 510 and 1198.
27 Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code §§ 200, 203, 218.5, 226, 558, and 1194, Plaintiffs are entitled
28
9
1 to recover the unpaid balance of overtime compensation Defendants owe Plaintiff, plus interest
2 penalties, attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs of suit.
3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
4 FAILURE TO COMPENSATE FOR ALL HOURS WORKED
5 (LAB. CODE §1198, et seq.)
10 stated.
11 50. At all times relevant herein, Defendants were required to compensate their hourly
12 employees for all hours worked upon reporting for work at the appointed time stated by the
13 employer, pursuant to Industrial Welfare Commission Orders 7-80 and 7-98, California Code of
14 Regulations, Title 8, Chapter 5, § 11070, Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 510, 1197, and 1198.
15 51. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked
16 by not compensating them for work performed. Defendants failed to pay applicable minimum
17 wages; Defendants failed to provide breaks as required by law; Defendants failed to compensate
18 employees for overtime based on “total remuneration” for the workweek; Defendants failed to pay
19 for meal periods; Defendants did not accurately record hours worked; Defendants failed to
20 properly itemize wages; and other reasons to be discovered.
21 52. Under the aforementioned wage orders and regulations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
22 compensation for all hours worked, but not paid, for the three (3) years preceding the filing of this
23 Complaint, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5, and
24 penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 203 and 226.
26 obligations to compensate Plaintiffs for all wages earned and all hours worked. As a direct result,
27 Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment
28
10
1 of such wages, lost interest on such wages, and expenses and attorney fees in seeking to compel
2 Defendants to fully perform their obligations under state law, all to their respective damage in
3 amounts according to proof at time of trial, but in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction of this
4 Court. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein knowingly and willfully, with the wrongful
5 and deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiffs, from improper motives amounting to malice, and in
6 conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to recover nominal, actual,
7 compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial,
8 but in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.
9 54. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an
10 amount according to proof at time of trial, but in an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of this
11 Court.
12 55. Defendants’ conduct described herein violates Labor Code §§ 200, 226, 500, 1197 and
13 1198, and Industrial Welfare Commission Orders 7-80 and 7-98, California Code of Regulations,
14 Title 8, Chapter 5, §11070. Therefore, pursuant to Labor Code of Regulations §§ 203, 218.5, 226,
15 558, 1194, and 1194.2, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for the nonpayment of wages of
16 all hours worked that were improperly deducted by Defendants’ policies, liquidated damages for
17 underpayment of minimum wages, penalties, reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs of
18 suit.
19 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL AND REST PERIODS
21 (LAB. CODE § 226.7)
26 stated.
27 57. Defendants are employers for purposes of California law.
28
11
1 58. Defendants did not make available meal and/or rest periods available to Plaintiffs as
2 required by Lab. Code § 226.7 on a continuous, ongoing, and systematic basis.
3 59. Defendants required Plaintiffs, and other employees, to work during meal and/or rest
4 periods mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. Defendants failed
5 to provide Plaintiffs, and other employees, with meal and/or rest periods in accordance with an
6 applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and therefore Defendants are legally
7 compelled to pay Plaintiffs one additional hour of pay at Plaintiffs’ regular rate of compensation,
8 no less than the legal minimum wage, for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.
9 Plaintiffs did not waive, nor did Plaintiffs agree to waive, these meal and/or rest periods.
10 60. Defendants employed Plaintiffs for work periods of more than five hours per day without
11 providing Plaintiffs with a rest period of not less than 10 minutes. Plaintiffs did not waive, nor did
12 Plaintiffs agree to waive, these meal and/or rest periods.
13 61. During this period of time, Plaintiffs was employed by Defendants, Defendants accrued
14 meal and rest period “premium pay” penalties in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to Labor Code §
15 226.7(b), plus interest and costs.
16 62. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages in addition to pre-judgment interest thereon
17 pursuant to Civ. Code §§ 3287, 3288 and/or any other applicable provision of law providing for
18 prejudgment interest.
19 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 WAITING TIME PENALTIES
21 (LAB. CODE §§ 201, 203)
24 contained in the foregoing Paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
25 64. Defendants were employers for purposes of California law.
26 65. Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants. The employment relationship between Plaintiffs
27 and Defendants ended on or about March 2, 2019.
28
12
1 66. Wages were due and owing to Plaintiffs from Defendants as the result of labor performed
2 by Plaintiffs, as an employee of Defendants, in amounts that were calculated by time, task, piece,
3 commission, or some other method.
4 67. DEFENDANT willfully failed to pay all wages due and owing to its employee, the
5 Plaintiffs, as of the date of the filing of this complaint. Defendants have not yet paid to Plaintiffs
6 all of the wages due and owing to Plaintiffs as a result of Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendants.
7 68. Defendants willfully failed to pay these wages to Plaintiffs, knowing that these wages were
8 due and owing to Plaintiffs as of the date of this Complaint, and no less than 30 working days.
9 This failure by Defendants to pay all wages due and owing to Plaintiffs was willful in that
10 Defendants intentionally failed and/or refused to pay the wages to Plaintiffs within 30 working
11 days of the termination of the employment, or at all.
12 69. Plaintiffs claim such amounts as damages in addition to pre-judgment interest thereon
13 pursuant to California Civil Code §§3287, 3288 and/or any other applicable provision of law
14 providing for prejudgment interest.
15 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16 FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WAGE STATEMENTS
17 (LAB. CODE § 226)
20 contained in the foregoing Paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
22 72. Defendants failed, semimonthly, or at the time of each payment of wages, to furnish to
23 Plaintiffs, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages,
24 or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in
25 writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any
26 employee whose compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of
27 overtime under subdivision (a) of Labor Code §515 or any applicable order of the Industrial
28
13
1 Welfare Commission, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if
2 the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on
3 written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned,
4 (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee
5 and his or her social security number, except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of
6 his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security
7 number may be shown on the itemized statement, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that
8 is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
9 corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Plaintiffs is informed
10 and believed, and thereupon alleges, that Defendants did not keep on file these records for at least
11 three years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California.
12 73. Defendants failed to provide such accurate wage statements to Plaintiffs for over forty (40)
13 pay periods, thus entitling Plaintiffs to Labor Code §226 penalties of $4,000, plus costs and
14 reasonable attorney’s fees.
15 74. Plaintiffs has suffered injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by Defendants
16 to comply with these requirements, and therefore Plaintiffs is entitled to recover the greater of all
17 actual damages or $50 for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs, and $100 per employee
18 for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an aggregate penalty of $4,000, and
19 is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
20 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
22 (TAMENY CLAIM)
25 contained in in the foregoing Paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
27 77. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.
28
14
1 78. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ discharge of Plaintiffs were Plaintiffs’
2 complaints about Defendants’ unlawful employment practices and violations of the California
3 Labor Code, including, but not limited to: failure to pay Plaintiffs their lawful wages, not allowing
4 Plaintiffs to take days of rest, work more than 40 hours a week for less than minimum wage, as
5 well as numerous other statutory violations as set forth herein.
6 79. In doing the things herein alleged, the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them,
7 constituted “malice,” “oppression” and/or “fraud” (as those terms are defined by Civil Code §
8 3294(c)), in that these acts were intended by Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiffs and/or
9 constituted despicable conduct carried on by the Defendants with willful and conscious disregard
10 of the rights of Plaintiffs, with the intention of the Defendants to deprive Plaintiffs of property and
11 legal rights, and were authorized or approved by Defendants justifying an award of exemplary and
12 punitive damages in in an amount according to proof, in order to deter Defendants from similar
13 conduct in the future, should be made
14 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
16 (LAB. CODE § 1102.5)
21 stated.
22 81. Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b) provides, in pertinent part, “An employer, or any person acting
23 on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or
24 because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a
25 government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another
26 employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance,
27 . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of
28
15
1 state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or
2 regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties.”
3 This statute reflects the broad public policy interest in encouraging workplace whistleblowers to
4 report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.
5 82. Defendants were employers for purposes of California law. Plaintiffs were employees of
6 Defendants, performing work on behalf of Defendants.
7 83. Defendants discharged, or constructively discharged, Plaintiffs in retaliation for engaging
8 in a protected activity, specifically, complaining about Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs their
9 lawful wages, not allowing Plaintiffs to take days of rest, work more than 40 hours a week for less
10 than minimum wage, as well as numerous other statutory violations as set forth herein.
12 constituted “malice,” “oppression” and/or “fraud” (as those terms are defined by Civil Code
13 §3294(c)), in that these acts were intended by Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiffs and/or
18 conduct in the future, should be made.
19 85. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5, Defendants are also liable for a civil penalty not
20 exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation of this section.
21 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
23 (LAB. CODE § 98.6)
27
28
16
2 stated.
3 87. Under Cal. Lab. Code § 98.6, employers may not discharge, discriminate, retaliate or take
4 any adverse action against an employee or job applicant for engaging in certain types of conduct
5 protected by the Labor Code, including whistleblowing, making a written or oral complaint that
6 they are owed wages, or “the exercise by the employee ... on behalf of himself, herself, or others
7 of any rights afforded him or her” Labor Code § 98.6.
8 88. Plaintiffs is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants violated this statute
9 by discharging, discriminating, and retaliating against Plaintiffs for protesting the conditions of
10 employment, including failure to pay Plaintiffs their lawful wages, not allowing Plaintiffs to take
11 days of rest, work more than 40 hours a week for less than minimum wage, as well as numerous
12 other statutory violations as set forth herein.
21 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
27 stated.
28
17
1 91. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.
2 92. Plaintiffs were subjected to working conditions that violated public policy, in that
3 Defendants required Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours a week for less than the minimum wage,
4 to forego meal and rest periods, and to be forbidden to take days off during the week, and to work
5 while sick or injured.
6 93. Defendants intentionally created or knowingly permitted these working conditions.
7 94. These working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in Plaintiffs’
8 position would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign.
9 95. Plaintiffs resigned because of these working conditions that violated public policy.
10 96. Plaintiffs were harmed as a result of these working conditions that violated public policy.
11 97. These working conditions that violated public policy were a substantial factor in causing
12 Plaintiffs’ harm.
21 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004
23 (LAB. CODE § 2698, et seq.)
24 (Plaintiffs LUIS DE LUNA and FIDEL MELARA Only as Against All Defendants)
25 99. Plaintiffs reallege, and incorporate herein by their reference, each and every
26 allegation contained in the foregoing Paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
27
28
18
1 Further, all allegations set forth in this cause of action are pled upon information and belief, unless
2 otherwise stated.
3 100. Plaintiffs are aggrieved employees under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
4 (“PAGA”) because they were employed by Defendants during the applicable statutory period and
5 suffered one or more of the violations of the Lab. Code set forth in this complaint. Plaintiffs seek
6 to recover on their behalf, on behalf of the State of California, and on behalf of all current and
7 former aggrieved employees of Defendants, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, plus reasonable
8 attorneys’ fees and costs in this representative action.
9 101. Plaintiffs seek penalties pursuant to PAGA for violations of the Lab. Code sections
10 identified herein, in amounts as set forth herein.
11 102. With respect to violations of Lab. Code § 204, Lab. Code § 210 imposes a civil
12 penalty (apart from other penalties) of $100 for each initial violation, and $200 for each subsequent
13 violation, in addition to 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld.
14 103. With respect to violations of Lab. Code § 226, Lab. Code § 226.3 imposes a civil
15 penalty in addition to any other penalty provide by law of $250 per aggrieved employee for the
16 first violation, and $1,000 per aggrieved employee for each subsequent violation of Lab. Code §
17 226(a).
18 104. With respect to violations of Lab. Code § 5110, Lab. Code § 558 imposes a civil
19 penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of $50 for initial violations for each
20 underpaid employee for each pay period in addition to an amount equal to the employee’s
21 underpaid wages, and $100 for subsequent violations for each underpaid employee for each pay
22 period in addition to an amount equal to the employee’s underpaid wages. The statute of
23 limitations with respect to penalties under Lab. Cod § 558 is three years. Plaintiff seeks civil
24 penalties in the amount of unpaid wages owed to aggrieved employees pursuant to Lab. Code §
25 558(a)(3).
26 105. Lab. Code § 2699, et seq., imposes a civil penalty of $100 per pay period, per
27 aggrieved employee, for initial violations, and $200 per pay period, per aggrieved employee, for
28
19
1 subsequent violations for all Lab. Code provisions for which a civil penalty is not specifically
2 provided.
3 106. To the extent applicable, and as set forth herein, Plaintiffs have satisfied the
4 requirements of Lab. Code § 2699.3.
5 //
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as against Defendants, and each of them, as
3 follows, for:
4 1) General damages in favor of each Plaintiff as against each Defendant in amount according
5 to proof at time of trial.
6 2) Special damages in favor of each Plaintiff as against each Defendant in an amount
7 according to proof at time of trial.
8 3) Damages for unpaid minimum wages in violation of Lab. Code § 1197.
9 4) Damages for unpaid overtime in violation of Lab. Code §§ 1198, et seq.
10 5) Damages for failure to compensate for all hours worked in violation of Lab. Code §§ 1198,
11 et seq..
12 6) Wages for missed meal and rest breaks pursuant to Lab. Code §§ 226.7 & 512 in an amount
13 according to proof at the time of trial, with interest thereon.

14 7) Penalties pursuant to Lab. Code § 226 for failure to provide accurate wage statements.
15 8) Waiting time penalties pursuant to Lab. Code § 203.
16 9) Damages for discharge in violation of public policy.
17 10) Damages for violation of Lab. Code § 1102.5, plus interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and
18 costs of suit.
19 11) A $10,000 penalty for each violation of Lab. Code § 1102..
20 12) Damages for violation of Lab. Code § 98.6, plus interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and
21 costs of suit.
22 13) A $10,000 penalty for each violation of Lab. Code § 98..
23 14) Civil penalties pursuant to PAGA.
24 15) Damages for constructive discharge in violation of public policy.
25 16) An award of punitive damages pursuant to Civ. Code § 3294, et seq.
26 17) An award of costs of suit.
27 18) Attorney’s fees, as allowed by law.
28
21
1 19) Any and all other applicable civil or statutory penalties, as provided by law.
2 20) All other general, specific, direct, indirect, consequential, and incidental damages,
3 according to proof at time of trial.
4 21) All other such relief that the Court deems just and proper.
5
ROMERO LAW, APC
6
8 Dated: May 20, 2021 ____________/s/____________

Alan Romero (SBN 249000)
9
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LUIS DE LUNA, FIDEL MELARA, and
11 JOHN ZAMBRANA
12
13
Plaintiffs hereby make demand for jury trial, and have timely posted the Jury Fee Deposit.
14
15
16 ROMERO LAW, APC

17
18
Dated: May 20, 2021 ____________/s/____________
19 Alan Romero (SBN 249000)
20
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
21 LUIS DE LUNA, FIDEL MELARA, and
JOHN ZAMBRANA
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES:
3 I am a resident of the United States and employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California, over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action or proceedings; my business
4
address is 80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 880, Pasadena, CA 91101. On June 8, 2021, I served the
5 following document(s) described as: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the interested
parties and/or through their attorneys of record by depositing the original or true copy thereof as
6 designated below, at Pasadena, California, addressed to the following as follows:
7
8 Margaret A. Sedy, Esquire
LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET A. SEDY
9 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101
10 Los Angeles, Ca 90024
m@sedylaw.com
11
( ) HAND DELIVERY/PERSONAL SERVICE (C.C.P. §§1011, et seq.): I caused said
12 document(s) to be personally served on the addressee listed above.
13
( ) MAIL (C.C.P. §1013(a)): I caused said document(s) to be deposited in the United States
14 Mail in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid at Pasadena, California, following the
ordinary practice at my place of business of collection and processing mail.
15
16 ( ) FACSIMILE (C.C.P. §§1012.5, et seq.): I caused said document(s) to be transmitted to
the party or parties listed above at the facsimile number listed above.
17
18 ( ) EXPRESS MAIL (C.C.P. §§1013(c)(d), et seq.): I caused said document(s) to be deposited
with an express service carrier in a sealed envelope designed by the carrier as an express
19 mail envelope, with fees and postage prepaid.
20 (X) ELECTRONIC MAIL (C.C.P §§1010.6(a)(6)): I caused said document(s) to be mailed
21 electronically to the party or parties listed above at the email address listed above.
22 (X) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
23
24 Executed on June 8, 2021, at Pasadena, California.
25 _____________________________
Jennifer Sandoval
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE

De Luna v. Albert Preciado and The Mortgage Guy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Luna v. Albert Preciado and The Mortgage Guy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alan Romero (SBN 249000)

6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

(Lab. Code §226.7);

24 Judge: Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon

13 proper in this Court because the damages alleged exceed $25,000.

21 the County of Los Angeles.

25 the County of Los Angeles.

18 damaged Plaintiffs, and are each therefore individually liable to Plaintiffs.

21 assignor, indemnitor, guarantor, or third-party beneficiary of one or more of the remaining

15 22. Plaintiffs were the employees of Defendants, and all of them.

24 new and unsuspecting victims.

16 for their employees.

20 Labor Code exists to stop.

22 all their employees, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs.

26 the other Defendants.

19 of California’s minimum wage protections.

22 but in amounts in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.

20 properly itemize wages; and other reasons to be discovered.

24 penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 203 and 226.

19 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL AND REST PERIODS

21 (LAB. CODE § 226.7)

22 (All Plaintiffs as Against All Defendants)

27 57. Defendants are employers for purposes of California law.

15 226.7(b), plus interest and costs.

19 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 WAITING TIME PENALTIES

21 (LAB. CODE §§ 201, 203)

22 (All Plaintiffs as Against All Defendants)

25 64. Defendants were employers for purposes of California law.

27 and Defendants ended on or about March 2, 2019.

18 conduct in the future, should be made.

21 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

23 (LAB. CODE § 98.6)

24 (All Plaintiffs as Against All Defendants)

20 conduct in the future, should be made.

21 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22 CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY

23 (All Plaintiffs as Against All Defendants)

20 conduct in the future, should be made.

21 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22 VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT OF 2004

23 (LAB. CODE § 2698, et seq.)

13 violation, in addition to 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld.

13 according to proof at the time of trial, with interest thereon.

15 8) Waiting time penalties pursuant to Lab. Code § 203.

16 9) Damages for discharge in violation of public policy.

19 11) A $10,000 penalty for each violation of Lab. Code § 1102..

22 13) A $10,000 penalty for each violation of Lab. Code § 98..

23 14) Civil penalties pursuant to PAGA.

24 15) Damages for constructive discharge in violation of public policy.

25 16) An award of punitive damages pursuant to Civ. Code § 3294, et seq.

26 17) An award of costs of suit.

27 18) Attorney’s fees, as allowed by law.

8 Dated: May 20, 2021 ____________/s/____________

16 ROMERO LAW, APC

You might also like

8 Dated: May 20, 2021 /s/