1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK

Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)

2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
4 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
5 Firmsite: www.bamlawca.com
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
12
13 KURT DIESEL, an individual, on behalf CASE No.
14 of himself and all persons similarly
situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
15 1. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN
16 Plaintiff, VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE §§ 17200 et seq.;
17 vs.
2. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.; and Does 1 WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB.
18 through 50, CODE §§ 204, 205.6, 210, 218, 510, 1194
19 & 1198; and,
3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE
20 Defendant.
ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE
STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF
21 CAL. LAB. CODE § 226.
22
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
23
24
25
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 Plaintiff Kurt Diesel ("PLAINTIFF"), an individual, alleges upon information and belief,
2 except for his own acts and knowledge, the following:
3
4 NATURE OF THE ACTION
5 1. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. is a diversified financial services company
6 providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, and consumer and commercial finance
7 throughout the United States. Dedicated to servicing the banking needs of small businesses,
8 Wells Fargo Bank N.A. hereinafter also referred to as "WELLS FARGO" or "DEFENDANT"
9 employs "Business Banking Specialists" who are primarily responsible for selling business
10 banking products and services to small businesses, which may include but is not limited to
11 online banking, bill pay, direct pay, checking and savings accounts, check and rewards cards,
12 as well as business finance software such as QuickBooks and Quicken. The Business Banking
13 Specialists were paid on an hourly basis and also earned a sales bonus. Plaintiff Kurt Diesel
14 was a non-exempt, hourly Business Banking Specialist of WELLS FARGO in California.
15 During the CLASS PERIOD, WELLS FARGO did not have in place an immutable timekeeping
16 system to accurately record and pay the PLAINTIFF and the other Business Banking Specialists
17 for the actual number of hours they worked each day. WELLS FARGO systematically and
18 unlawfuly instructed these employees not to record hours worked in excess of eight (8) in a
19 workday and forty (40) in a workweek on their time sheets to avoid paying the employees the
20 applicable overtime rate of time and a half. As a result, the Business Banking Specialists
21 regularly recorded reduced hours on their time sheets by not recording overtime hours worked
22 in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF and the other Business
23 Banking Specialists forfeited hours worked and did not receive compensation for all hours
24 worked, including but not limited to the overtime hours worked. DEFENDANT’s policy and
25 practice to instruct employees not to record all hours worked is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s
26 business records and timekeeping system. DEFENDANT also engaged in a common course
27 of failing to provide legally required meal and rest breaks to the PLAINTIFF and the other
28 Business Banking Specialists. This practice was a direct result of WELLS FARGO’s uniform

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-1-
 1 policy and practice to deny employees uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal breaks throughout
2 each workday. As a result, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members forfeited mandatory meal
3 breaks each workday without additional compensation in accordance with DEFENDANT’s
4 strict, corporate, and uniform guidelines.
5 2. PLAINTIFF brings this Action against WELLS FARGO on behalf of himself and
6 on behalf of a class consisting of all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for WELLS
7 FARGO as a Business Banking Specialist in California during the CLASS PERIOD ("CLASS"
8 or "Class Members"). PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action to fully compensate the Class
9 Members for their losses incurred during the CLASS PERIOD caused by WELLS FARGO’s
10 uniform policy and practice which fails to compensate the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members,
11 for all hours worked. WELLS FARGO’s uniform policy and practice alleged herein is an
12 unfair, deceptive and unlawful practice whereby WELLS FARGO retained and continues to
13 retain wages due PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, for all hours worked. PLAINTIFF, and
14 the Class Members, seek an injunction enjoining such conduct by WELLS FARGO in the
15 future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and Class Members who have been economically
16 injured by DEFENDANT's past and current unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal
17 and equitable relief.
18
19 THE PARTIES
20 3. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. ("WELLS FARGO" or "DEFENDANT")
21 employs more than 270,000 team members worldwide and has assets of $1.2 trillion as of
22 2010. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. is headquartered in San Francisco, California, and maintains
23 the largest number of its banking, mortgage, and brokerage stores in California. At all
24 relevant times mentioned herein, WELLS FARGO conducted and continues to conduct
25 substantial and regular business throughout California.
26 4. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, subsidiary,
27 partnership, associate or otherwise of DEFENDANT Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are
28 presently unknown to the PLAINTIFF who therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-2-
 1 names pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474. PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this
2 Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50, inclusive, when
3 they are ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and based upon that information
4 and belief alleges, that the defendants named in this Complaint, including Does 1 through
5 50, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for one or more of the events and happenings
6 that proximately caused the injuries and damages hereinafter alleged.
7 5. The agents, servants, and/or employees of DEFENDANT and each of them
8 acting on behalf of DEFENDANT acted within the course and scope of his, her or its
9 authority as the agent, servant, and/or employee of DEFENDANT, and personally
10 participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of DEFENDANT with respect to the
11 conduct alleged herein. Consequently, DEFENDANT is jointly and severally liable to the
12 PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate
13 result of the conduct of DEFENDANT’s agents, servants, and/or employees.
14 6. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Kurt Diesel ("PLAINTIFF")
15 resided in California. PLAINTIFF was employed by WELLS FARGO in California as a
16 non-exempt, hourly "Business Banking Specialist" from August 2007 to June 2010.
17
18 THE CONDUCT
19 7. WELLS FARGO systematically failed to correctly pay the PLAINTIFF and the
20 Class Members for all the hours they worked, including hours worked in excess of eight (8) in
21 a workday and forty (40) in a workweek. WELLS FARGO used a mutable timekeeping system
22 in which hours could be unilaterally erased or altered by WELLS FARGO such that there
23 existed no immutable timekeeping system that accurately recorded the true number of hours
24 worked by the Class Members. WELLS FARGO systematically and unlawfully instructed the
25 Business Banking Specialists not to record hours worked in excess of (8) in a workday and forty
26 (40) in a workweek. As a result, these employees regularly recorded reduced hours on their
27 time sheets by not recording overtime hours worked in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.
28 Therefore, the PLAINTIFF and the other Business Banking Specialists forfeited hours worked

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-3-
 1 and did not receive compensation for all hours worked, including but not limited to the overtime
2 hours worked. In this regard, DEFENDANT’s timekeeping method was used in a manner that
3 failed to properly compensate the employees because the employees were underpaid for the
4 amount of hours they worked in accordance with DEFENDANT’s strict, corporate and uniform
5 guidelines. DEFENDANT also engaged in a common course of failing to provide legally
6 required meal and rest breaks to the PLAINTIFF and the other Business Banking Specialists.
7 This practice was a direct result of WELLS FARGO’s uniform policy and practice to deny
8 employees uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal breaks throughout each workday. As a result,
9 the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members forfeited mandatory meal breaks each workday without
10 additional compensation.
11 8. In violation of the applicable sections of the California Labor Code and the
12 requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order, WELLS FARGO as
13 a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure, intentionally, knowingly and
14 systematically failed to properly compensate the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for all
15 hours worked, by systematically instructing the employees not to record overtime hours worked.
16 Specifically, WELLS FARGO had in place a mutable timekeeping system that was incapable
17 of accurately recording the true number of hours worked by the employees. Therefore, the
18 PLAINTIFF and the other Business Banking Specialists forfeited hours worked and did not
19 receive compensation for all hours worked, including but not limited to the overtime hours
20 worked. This uniform policy and systematic practice of WELLS FARGO was intended to
21 purposefully avoid the payment of wages and premium wages required by California law which
22 allows WELLS FARGO to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors. To
23 the extent equitable tolling operates to toll claims by the CLASS against WELLS FARGO, the
24 CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted accordingly.
25 9. WELLS FARGO instituted a company-wide policy whereby the PLAINTIFF and
26
27 the Class Members were systematically and unlawfully instructed not to record hours worked
28 in excess of (8) in a workday and forty (40) in a workweek to avoid paying these employees

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-4-
 1 premium wages for the overtime hours worked. As a result, the PLAINTIFF and the Class
2 Members regularly recorded reduced hours on their time sheets by not recording overtime hours
3 worked in accordance with DEFENDANT’s strict, uniform and corporate guidelines and in
4 violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226. This systematic and company-wide policy originating at the
5 corporate level is the cause of the illegal pay practices as described herein.
6
7 THE CLASS
8 10. PLAINTIFF brings this Action against WELLS FARGO pursuant to California
9 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class consisting
10 of all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for WELLS FARGO as a Business Banking
11 Specialist in California during the CLASS PERIOD ("CLASS" or "Class Members"). The
12 applicable "CLASS PERIOD" is defined as the period beginning on the date four (4) years prior
13 to the filing of this Complaint and ending on a date as determined by the Court.
14 11. All non-exempt, hourly Business Banking Specialists working for WELLS
15 FARGO in California are similarly situated in that they are all subject to WELLS FARGO’s
16 uniform policy and systematic practice that requires them to perform work without
17 compensation as required by law.
18 12. During the CLASS PERIOD, WELLS FARGO uniformly violated the rights of
19 the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members under California law, without limitation, in the
20 following manners:
21 (a) Violating CalifoJanuary 14, 2011rnia Code of Regulations, Title 8,
22 Sections 11010(7) and 11040(7) by failing to compensate the
23 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for all hours worked, including
24 straight time and overtime;
25 (b) Violating California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010(7)
26 and 11040(7), by failing to have in place an immutable timekeeping
27 system capable of tracking, without mutation, all of the time the
28 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members work that is not subject to

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-5-
 1 unilateral modification and manipulation;
2 (c) Violating California Labor Code Sections 204, 206.5, 510 and 1198, by
3 failing to pay premium wages for hours worked in excess eight (8) in
4 any workday and forty (40) in any workweek;
5 (d) Violating California Labor Code Section 226, by failing to provide the
6 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members with accurate itemized wage
7 statements;
8 (e) Violating California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202, by failing to
9 tender full payment and/or restitution of wages owed to the employees
10 whose employment with DEFENDANT has terminated;
11 (f) Violating Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., by
12 committing acts of unfair competition in violation of the California
13 Labor Code and public policy, by failing to provide the PLAINTIFF
14 and the Class Members with uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal
15 breaks; and,
16 (g) Violating Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., by
17 committing acts of unfair competition in violation of the California
18 Labor Code and public policy, by failing to pay the PLAINTIFF and
19 the Class Members wages for all hours worked as a result of altering
20 the actual number of hours worked.
21 13. As a result of WELLS FARGO’s uniform policies, practices and procedures,
22 there are numerous questions of law and fact common to all Class Members who worked for
23 WELLS FARGO in California during the CLASS PERIOD. These questions include, but
24 are not limited to, the following:
25 (a) Whether WELLS FARGO’s policies, practices and pattern of conduct
26 described in this Complaint was and is unlawful;
27 (b) Whether WELLS FARGO failed to accurately pay the PLAINTIFF and
28 the Class Members for all hours worked, including overtime hours;

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-6-
 1 (c) Whether WELLS FARGO instructed, programmed, or permitted
2 employees to state an incorrect number of hours worked;
3 (d) Whether WELLS FARGO failed to maintain an immutable timekeeping
4 system so as to record true and accurate time records for employees;
5 (e) Whether WELLS FARGO failed to maintain true and accurate time
6 records for all hours worked by its Business Banking Specialists;
7 (f) Whether WELLS FARGO failed to provide employees with
8 uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal breaks;
9 (g) Whether WELLS FARGO failed to provide employees with accurate
10 itemized wage statements;
11 (h) Whether WELLS FARGO’s compensatory time policy and practice
12 complies with the requirements of Labor Code §204.3;
13 (i) Whether WELLS FARGO has engaged in unfair competition by the
14 above-listed conduct; and,
15 (j) Whether WELLS FARGO’s conduct was willful.
16 14. This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a
17 Class Action as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382, in that:
18 (a) The persons who comprise the CLASS are so numerous that the joinder
19 of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition of their claims
20 as a class will benefit the parties and the Court;
21 (b) Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief
22 issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the CLASS and
23 will apply uniformly to every member of the CLASS;
24 (c) The claims of the representative PLAINTIFF are typical of the claims
25 of each member of the CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all the other Class
26 Members, was not correctly compensated for all hours worked because
27 of DEFENDANT’s company policies and practices the PLAINTIFF
28 sustained economic injuries arising from WELLS FARGO’s violations

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-7-
 1 of the laws of California. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are
2 similarly or identically harmed by the same unfair, deceptive, unlawful
3 and pervasive pattern of misconduct engaged in by WELLS FARGO;
4 and,
5 (d) The representative PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and
6 protect the interest of the CLASS, and has retained counsel who are
7 competent and experienced in Class Action litigation. There are no
8 material conflicts between the claims of the representative PLAINTIFF
9 and the Class Members that would make class certification
10 inappropriate. Counsel for the CLASS will vigorously assert the claims
11 of all Class Members.
12 15. In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this Action
13 is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
14 Section 382, in that:
15 (a) Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive,
16 statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution
17 of separate actions by individual members of the CLASS will create the
18 risk of:
19 (i) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual
20 members of the CLASS which would establish incompatible
21 standards of conduct for the parties opposing the CLASS; or,
22 (ii) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CLASS
23 which would as a practical matter be dispositive of interests of
24 the other members not party to the adjudication or substantially
25 impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
26 (b) The parties opposing the CLASS have acted on grounds generally
27 applicable to the CLASS, making appropriate class-wide relief with
28 respect to the CLASS as a whole in that WELLS FARGO’s company

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-8-
 1 policies and practices failed to compensate employees for all hours
2 worked, and failed to properly apply the overtime rate of pay applicable
3 to all hours worked in excess of eight (8) in any workday and forty (40)
4 in any workweek; and,
5 (c) Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Class Members and
6 predominate over any question affecting only individual members, and
7 Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
8 efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of:
9 (i) The interests of the members of the CLASS in individually
10 controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
11 (ii) The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the
12 controversy already commenced by or against members of the
13 CLASS;
14 (iii) The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation
15 of the claims in the particular forum;
16 (iv) The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a
17 Class Action; and,
18 (v) The basis of WELLS FARGO’s policies and practices uniformly
19 applied to all Class Members.
20 16. This Court should permit this Action to be maintained as a Class Action
21 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382, because:
22 (a) The questions of law and fact common to the CLASS predominate over
23 any question affecting only individual members;
24 (b) A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair
25 and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the CLASS;
26 (c) The Class Members are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all
27 Class Members before the Court;
28 (d) PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, will not be able to obtain effective

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-9-
 1 and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a Class
2 Action;
3 (e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and
4 equitable relief for the common law and statutory violations and other
5 improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages
6 and injuries which WELLS FARGO’s actions have inflicted upon the
7 CLASS;
8 (f) There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets and
9 available insurance of WELLS FARGO are sufficient to adequately
10 compensate the members of the CLASS for any injuries sustained;
11 (g) WELLS FARGO has acted or has refused to act on grounds generally
12 applicable to the CLASS, thereby making final class-wide relief
13 appropriate with respect to the CLASS as a whole; and,
14 (h) The Class Members are readily ascertainable from the business records
15 of WELLS FARGO. The CLASS consists of all of WELLS FARGO’s
16 non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for WELLS FARGO as
17 Business Banking Specialist in California who were subject to the
18 above described uniform policies and practices in California during the
19 applicable time period.
20
21 JURISDICTION & VENUE
22 17. This Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to California Code of
23 Civil Procedure, Section 410.10 and California Business & Professions Code, Section
24 17203. This Action is brought as a Class Action on behalf of similarly situated employees
25 of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382.
26 18. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
27 Sections 395 and 395.5, because Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (i) currently maintains and at all
28 relevant times maintained offices and facilities in this County, and (ii) committed the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-10-
 1 wrongful conduct herein alleged in this County against members of the CLASS.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2
For Unlawful, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices
3
[Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.]
4
(By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
5
19. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
6
as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint.
7
20. DEFENDANT is a "persons" as that term is defined under the California
8
Business & Professions Code, Section 17021.
9
21. Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code defines unfair
10
competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17200
11
applies to violations of labor laws in the employment context. Section 17203 authorizes
12
injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition as
13
follows:
14
Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair
15 competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court
may make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as
16 may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice
which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be
17 necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or
personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.
18
22. By the conduct alleged herein, WELLS FARGO’s uniform policies and practices
19
violated and continue to violate California law, and specifically provisions of the Wage Orders,
20
the California Labor Code, including Sections 201, 202, 204, 204.3, 206.5, 210, 510 and 1198,
21
and the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010 and 11040, for which this Court
22
should issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the California
23
Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
24
23. By the conduct alleged herein, WELLS FARGO’s practices were unfair in that
25
these practices violate public policy, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or
26
substantially injurious to employees, and are without valid justification or utility, for which this
27
Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the California
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-11-
 1 Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
2 24. By the conduct alleged herein, WELLS FARGO’s practices were deceptive and
3 fraudulent in that WELLS FARGO’s uniform practice was to represent to its employees that
4 they were not entitled to compensation for all hours worked, when in fact these representations
5 were false and likely to deceive, for which this Court should issue equitable and injunctive
6 relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code, including
7 restitution of wages wrongfully withheld.
8 25. By and through the unfair and unlawful business practices described herein,
9 WELLS FARGO has obtained valuable property, money, and services from the PLAINTIFF,
10 and from the Class Members, and has deprived them of valuable rights and benefits guaranteed
11 by law and contract, all to the detriment of the employees and to the benefit of DEFENDANT
12 so as to allow DEFENDANT to unfairly compete against competitors who comply with the law.
13 26. All the acts described herein as violations of, among other things, the California
14 Labor Code, California Code of Regulations, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
15 Orders, are unlawful and in violation of public policy; and are immoral, unethical, oppressive,
16 and unscrupulous, are deceptive, and thereby constitute unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
17 practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, Sections 17200 et seq.
18 DEFENDANT’s conduct was deceptive in that DEFENDANT represented to the PLAINTIFF
19 and the others members of the CLASS that they were not entitled to report, record and receive
20 compensation for all hours worked, including overtime wages for hours worked in excess of (8)
21 in any workday and forty (40) in any workweek, and on seven (7) consecutive days.
22 DEFENDANT’s conduct was also deceptive in that DEFENDANT failed to provide legally
23 required meal and rest breaks to the PLAINTIFF and the other Business Banking Specialists.
24 This practice was a direct result of WELLS FARGO’s uniform policy and practice to deny
25 employees uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal breaks throughout each workday. As a result,
26 the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members forfeited mandatory meal breaks each workday without
27 additional compensation in accordance with DEFENDANT’s strict, corporate, and uniform
28 guidelines.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-12-
 1 27. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF demands on behalf of himself and on behalf of
2 each member of the CLASS, one (1) hour of pay for each workday in which an off-duty meal
3 period was not timely provided for each five (5) hours of work, and/or one (1) hour of pay for
4 each workday in which a second off-duty meal period was not timely provided for each ten (10)
5 hours of work.
6 28. PLAINTIFF further demands on behalf of himself and on behalf of each
7 member of the CLASS, one (1) hour of pay for each workday in which a rest period was not
8 timely provided as required by law.
9 29. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, are entitled to, and do, seek such relief as
10 may be necessary to restore to them the money and property which DEFENDANT has acquired,
11 or of which the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have been deprived, by means of the
12 described unlawful and unfair business practices. The relief sought in this cause of action
13 includes payment of wages for hours worked by the Class Members, which includes both wages
14 for straight time and overtime hours.
15 30. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, are further entitled to, and do, seek a
16 declaration that the described business practices are unfair and unlawful and that an injunctive
17 relief should be issued restraining WELLS FARGO from engaging in any of these unfair and
18 unlawful business practices in the future.
19 31. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, have no plain, speedy, and/or adequate
20 remedy at law that will end the unfair and unlawful business practices of WELLS FARGO.
21 Further, the practices herein alleged presently continue to occur unabated. As a result of the
22 unfair and unlawful business practices described herein, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class
23 Members, have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless WELLS FARGO
24 is restrained from continuing to engage in these unfair and unlawful business practices. In
25 addition, compensation to the PLAINTIFF as well as to the other members of the CLASS.
26
27 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
28 For Failure To Pay Overtime Wages

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-13-
 1 [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 204.3 210, 218, 510, 1194 & 1198]
2 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
3 32. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
4 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Complaint.
5 33. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, bring a claim for DEFENDANT’s willful
6 and intentional violations of the California Labor Code, Sections 201, 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 510,
7 515, 558, 1198, and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010 and 11040 for
8 DEFENDANT’s failure to correctly compensate the employees for all the hours they worked
9 as a result of DEFENDANT’s uniform and systematic policy and practice to instruct employees
10 not to record the true number of hours they worked each workday.
11 34. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 204, other applicable laws and
12 regulations, and public policy, an employer must timely pay its employees for all hours worked.
13 Labor Code Section 201 and 202 require DEFENDANT to pay all wages due to an employee
14 whose employment terminated.
15 35. California Labor Code Section 510 further provides that employees in California
16 shall not be employed more than eight (8) hours per workday and forty (40) hours per
17 workweek unless they receive additional compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts
18 specified by law.
19 36. California Labor Code Section 1194 establishes an employee's right to recover
20 unpaid wages, including overtime compensation and interest thereon, together with the costs
21 of suit. Section 1198 of the California Labor Code states that the employment of an employee
22 for longer hours than those fixed by the Industrial Welfare Commission is unlawful.
23 37. During the CLASS PERIOD, WELLS FARGO maintained a uniform wage
24 practice of paying the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, without regard to the number of
25 hours they actually worked. As set forth herein, DEFENDANT’s policy and practice was to
26 intentionally and uniformly deny timely payment of wages due, including overtime wages,
27 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members, and WELLS FARGO in fact failed to pay these employees
28 for all hours worked.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-14-
 1 38. WELLS FARGO's uniform pattern of unlawful wage and hour practices
2 manifested, without limitation, applicable to the CLASS as a whole, by implementing a uniform
3 policy and systematic practice that denied compensation to the Class Members, including the
4 PLAINTIFF, for all the hours they worked.
5 39. In committing these violations of the California Labor Code, WELLS FARGO
6 inaccurately under-reported the actual time worked and WELLS FARGO underpaid the actual
7 amount of hours worked, in violation of California Labor Code Section 206.5. WELLS
8 FARGO acted in an illegal attempt to avoid payment of earned wages, overtime compensation
9 and other benefits in violation of the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission
10 requirements, and other applicable laws and regulations.
11 40. As a direct result of WELLS FARGO’s unlawful wage practices as alleged
12 herein, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members did not receive proper compensation for all the
13 hours they actually worked for DEFENDANT’s benefit.
14 41. California Labor Code Section 515 sets out various categories of employees who
15 are exempt from the overtime requirements of the law. None of these exemptions are applicable
16 to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and
17 the Class Members, were classified by DEFENDANT as non-exempt from overtime and
18 performed non-exempt job duties.
19 42. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were
20 classified as non-exempt from overtime by WELLS FARGO. None of the exemptions are
21 applicable to the CLASS based on their job duties. Further, the PLAINTIFF and the Class
22 Members are not subject to a valid collective bargaining agreement that would preclude the
23 causes of action contained herein this Complaint. Rather, the PLAINTIFF brings this Action
24 on behalf of himself and the members of the CLASS based on DEFENDANT’s violations of
25 non-negotiable, non-waiveable rights provided by the state of California.
26 43. During the CLASS PERIOD, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members worked
27 more hours than they were paid for and/or were paid less for hours worked that they were
28 entitled to, constituting a failure to pay all earned wages. During the CLASS PERIOD, the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-15-
 1 PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, regularly worked overtime hours.
2 44. DEFENDANT failed to accurately pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members
3 wages for all the hours they actually worked, including hours in excess of the maximum hours
4 permissible by law as required by the California Labor Code, Sections 204, 510 and 1198, even
5 though the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members were regularly required to work, and did in fact
6 work, hours that WELLS FARGO never recorded, as evidenced by WELLS FARGO’s business
7 records, timekeeping system and witnessed by employees.
8 45. By virtue of DEFENDANT's unlawful failure to pay compensation to the
9 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members accurately for the true number of hours they worked, the
10 PLAINTIFF and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer an economic
11 injury in amounts which are presently unknown to them and which will be ascertained
12 according to proof at trial.
13 46. During the CLASS PERIOD, WELLS FARGO knew or should have known that
14 the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members worked hours that they were not compensated for,
15 including hours in excess of eight (8) in any workday and forty (40) in any workweek. WELLS
16 FARGO systematically elected, either through intentional malfeasance or gross nonfeasance,
17 not to pay employees the correct amount for their labor as a matter of uniform, corporate policy,
18 practice and procedure, and to perpetrate this systematic scheme, WELLS FARGO refused to
19 pay employees for compensable work time.
20 47. In performing the acts and practices herein alleged in violation of labor laws and
21 refusing to compensate the Class Members for all the hours they worked and provide the
22 requisite overtime compensation, WELLS FARGO acted and continues to act intentionally,
23 oppressively, and maliciously toward the PLAINTIFF, and toward the Class Members, with a
24 conscious of and utter disregard for their legal rights, or the consequences to them, and with the
25 despicable intent of depriving them of their property and legal rights, and otherwise causing
26 them injury in order to increase corporate profits at the expense of the PLAINTIFF and the
27 Class Members.
28 48. WELLS FARGO’s respective failure to accurately record the hours worked by

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-16-
 1 the CLASS and pay the proper amount of overtime compensation to the PLAINTIFF and the
2 Class Members violates IWC Wage Orders No. 1 and 4 and the California Labor Code, Sections
3 201, 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 218, 510, 1194 and 1198, and is therefore unlawful.
4 49. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, request recovery of unpaid
5 overtime compensation according to proof, interest, statutory costs, as well as the assessment
6 of any statutory penalties against DEFENDANT, in a sum as provided by the California Labor
7 Code and/or other applicable statutes. In addition, to the extent wages are determined to be
8 owed to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members whose employment has terminated, these
9 employees are further entitled to waiting time penalties under Section 203 of the California
10 Labor Code, which are sought herein.
11
12 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
13 For Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements
14 [Cal. Lab. Code § 226]
15 (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT)
16 50. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference,
17 as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Complaint.
18 51. Pursuant to the California Labor Code, Section 226, an employer must furnish
19 employees with an "accurate itemized statement in writing" showing all of the following items:
20 (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose
21 compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from payment of overtime under
22 subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission,
23 (3) the number of piecerate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid
24 on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of
25 the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive
26 dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her
27 social security number, except that by January 1, 2008, only the last four digits of his or her
28 social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-17-
 1 may be shown on the itemized statement, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the
2 employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
3 corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. See California
4 Labor Code § 226.
5 52. At all relevant times mentioned herein, WELLS FARGO violated California
6 Labor Code Section 226 with respect to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members, without
7 limitation, in that WELLS FARGO inaccurately or completely failed to record and report all
8 the hours they actually worked on their pay stubs, including straight time and overtime hours
9 worked, as well as their gross wages earned.
10 53. This failure was the result of WELLS FARGO’s intentional refusal to institute
11 an immutable timekeeping system to accurately record all hours worked by the employees and
12 WELLS FARGO’s orders and instructions to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members to
13 exclude and/or delete the true amount of hours they worked, including overtime hours, from the
14 actual hours that should have been reported on their time sheets, and this miscalculation of the
15 applicable regular rate as herein alleged.
16 54. WELLS FARGO knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with California
17 Labor Code Section 226, causing damages to the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members. These
18 damages include, but are not limited to, unpaid wages for all hours actually worked, the costs
19 expended calculating the true hours worked and the amount of employment taxes which were
20 not properly paid to state and federal tax authorities. These damages may be difficult to
21 estimate. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, may recover liquidated damages
22 of $50.00 for the initial pay period in which the violation occurred, and $100.00 for each
23 violation in subsequent pay period pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226, in an amount
24 according to proof at the time of trial (but in no event more than $4,000.00 for the PLAINTIFF
25 and each respective member of the CLASS herein), plus statutory costs, pursuant to California
26 Labor Code Section 226(g).
27
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-18-
 1
PRAYER
2
WHEREFOR, the PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:
3
1. For the First Cause of Action:
4
A) That the Court certify the First Cause of Action asserted by the CLASS as a
5
Class Action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382;
6
B) An order temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining
7
DEFENDANT from engaging in similar unlawful conduct as set forth herein;
8
and,
9
C) Disgorgement of DEFENDANT’s ill-gotten gains into a fluid fund for
10
restitution of the sums incidental to DEFENDANT’s violations due
11
PLAINTIFF and the Class Members.
12
2. For the Second and Third Causes of Action:
13
A) That the Court certify the Second and Third Causes of Action asserted by the
14
CLASS as a Class Action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
15
Section 382;
16
B) Damages for the full amount of unpaid overtime wages pursuant to Labor
17
Code §1194;
18
C) Penalties payable to all terminated employees in the CLASS in accordance
19
with Cal. Lab. Code § 203; and,
20
D) The greater of all actual damages or fifty dollars ($50) for the initial pay
21
period in which a violation occurs and one hundred dollars ($100) per each
22
member of the CLASS for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not
23
exceeding an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000), and an
24
award of costs for violations of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.
25
2. On all claims:
26
A) An award of interest, including prejudgment interest at the legal rate;
27
B) An award of penalties and cost of suit, but neither this prayer nor any other
28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

-19-