‘80 440 (Ray. 12/09) Summons in 2 Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTY SEITHER, an Individual, on al persons siniarty Plata v. Civil Action No. '11CV0230W CAB FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC. Defendant ee oe oe SS PP SMR UL CEO Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (@)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ‘The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attomey, whose name and address are: A lawsuit has been filed against you. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK Norman B. Blumenthal 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Ifyou ful to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you forthe relief demanded in the complaint, ‘You also must file your answer or motion with the court W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr. CLERK OF COURT Date: ised S/_C. Eaja ‘Signature of Clerk or Depidy Clark‘AQ 440 (Rey. 1219) Surnmans ina Civil Action Page 2) Civil Action No. "TTCVO230W CAB PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P, 4 ()) ‘This summons for (name of naividal and tile, Vary) was received by me on (date) 1711 personally served the summons on the individual at yace) on (date) 30r [7 1eft the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name) » a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, (on (date) and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or [711 served the summons on (name of individual) » who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organicaton) on (date sor 171 1 returned the summons unexecuted because jor T) other épecipy: My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, fora total of $ 1 dectare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: Server's signature Printed name and ttle Server's akivess NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO TRIAL, BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE IIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF 28 USC 636(C) YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF THIS DISTRICT MAY, UPON CONSENT OF ALL PARTIES, CONDUCT ANY OR ALL PROCEEDINGS, lINCLUDING A JURY OR NON-IURY TRIAL, AND ORDER THE ENTRY OF A FINAL JUDGMENT. YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT YOUR DECISION TO CONSENT OR NOT CONSENT IS ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY AND SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED SOLELY TO THE CLERK OF COURT. ONLY IF ALL PARTIES CONSENT WILL THE JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO WHOM THE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED BE INFORMED OF YOUR DECISION. JUDGMENTS OF THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGES ARE APPEALABLE TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS IN |ACCORDANCE WITH THIS STATUTE AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.Case 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 25 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparaitt Bhowmik ‘Siate Bar #248066) 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www, bamlaw: Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTY SEITHER, an individual, on CASE No. _'146V0230W__ CAB behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 1, UNFAIR COMPETITION IN Plaintiff, VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROP. CODE 88 17200 et seas vs. 2. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT CODE §§ 204, 205.6, 210, 218, 510, 1194 SERVICES, INC., & 1198; 3._ FAILURE TO PROVIDE Defendant, ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 226; 4. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES FOR REQUIRED EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF CAL, LAB. CODE § 2802; and, 5._ FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION IN VIOLATION OF 29 USC. §§ 201, et seq. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Kristy Seither ("PLAINTIFF"), an individual, alleges upon information and. belief, except for her own acts and knowledge, the following: ‘CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINTSexwrraauneoen 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 fen 26 27 28 Case 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 2 of 25 NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Defendant FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc., formerly FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print Services, is a unit of express delivery giant FedEx. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. hereinafter also referred to as "FEDEX" or "DEFENDANT" provides color printing, finishing and presentation services, Internet access, videoconferencing and Web-based on- demand printing and document management solutions, and also sells office supplies and rents computers and videoconferencing rooms. The company operates about 1,950 business service centers in the United States and internationally. The FEDEX stores serve as drop-off points for items to be delivered by sister companies FedEx Express and FedEx Ground and primarily target small business and home office clients, while also providing services to individuals and corporations. 2. Plaintiff Kristy Seither is a non-exempt, hourly employee of FEDEX in California. During the CLASS PERIOD, FEDEX did not have in place an immutable timekeeping system to accurately record and pay the PLAINTIFF and the other Class Members for the actual number of hours they worked each day. FEDEX systematically and unlawfully deleted and/or reduced the number of hours worked by employees in order to avoid paying employees the applicable overtime rate of time and a half, As a result, FEDEX regularly recorded reduced hours on employee time cards by not recording overtime hours worked in violation of Cal. Lab, Code § 226. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members forfeited hours worked and did not receive compensation for all hours worked, including but not limited to the overtime hours worked, FEDEX also altered employee time cards by recording fictitious thirty (30) minute meal breaks on employee time cards so as to create the appearance that employees clocked out for a thirty (30) minute meal break each day. This practice was a direct result of FEDEX’s uniform policy and practice to deny employees uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal breaks throughout each workday. As a result, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members also forfeited mandatory meal breaks each workday without additional compensation in accordance with DEFENDANT"s strict, corporate, and uniform guidelines. FEDEX also :F and the Class Members engaged in a common course of failing to reimburse the PLAINT ‘CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINTCe a Awe wD Case 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 3 of 25 fornecessary expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties for DEFENDANT’s benefit. FEDEX’s uniform policy and practice not to pay employees for all hours worked is evidenced by DEFENDANT’s business records and timekeeping system. ae PLAINTI F brings this Action against FEDEX on behalf of herself and on. behalf of a class consisting of all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for FEDEX in California during the CLASS PERIOD ("CLASS" or "Class Members"). PLAINTIFF brings this Class Action to fully compensate the Class Members for their losses incurred during the CLASS PERIOD caused by FEDEX’s uniform policy and practice which fails to compensate the PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, for all hours worked. FEDEX’s uniform policy and practice alleged herein is an unfair, deceptive and unlawful practice whereby FEDEX retained and continues to retain wages due PLAINTIFF, and the Class. Members, for all hours worked, PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, seek an injunction enjoining such conduct by FEDEX in the future, relief for the named PLAINTIFF and Class Members who have been economically injured by DEFENDANT's past and current unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief. THE PARTIES 4, Defendant FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. ("FEDEX" or- "DEFENDANT") was founded in 2007 and is based and headquartered in Dallas, Texas. At all relevant times mentioned herein, FEDEX conducted and continues to conduet substantial and regular business throughout California. 5. The agents, servants, and/or employees of DEFENDANT and each of them acting on behalf of DEFENDANT acted within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as the agent, servant, and/or employee of DEFENDANT, and personally participated in the conduct alleged herein on behalf of DEFENDANT with respect to the conduct alleged herein, Consequently, DEFENDANT is jointly and severally liable to the PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CLASS, for the loss sustained as a proximate result of the conduct of DEFENDANT’s agents, servants, and/or employees. ‘CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINTCase 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 4 of 25 6. Atall relevant times mentioned herein, Plaintiff Kristy Seither ("PLAINTIFF") resided in California. PLAINTIFF has been employed by FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc. in California as a non-exempt, hourly "Customer Service Representative" and "Customer Service Coordinator" since January 2007. Tue Conpuct 7, FEDEX systematically failed to correctly pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for all the hours they worked, including hours worked in excess of eight (8) in a workday and forty (40) ina workweek. FEDEX used a mutable timekeeping system in which hours could be unilaterally erased or altered by FEDEX such that there existed no immutable timekeeping system that accurately recorded the true number of hours worked by the Class Members. FEDEX’s practice resulted in the Class Members not being able to record the accurate number of straight time hours worked and also hours in excess of eight (8) per workday and forty (40) per workweek so that FEDEX could avoid paying the Class Members premium wages. In addition, FEDEX altered employee time cards by recording fictitious thirty (30) minute meal breaks on employee time cards so as to create the appearance that employees clocked out for a thirty (30) minute meal break each day. This practice was a direct result of FEDEX’s uniform policy and practice to deny employees uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal breaks throughout cach workday. Asa result, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members forfeited mandatory meal breaks each workday without additional compensation, FEDEX also engaged in a common course of failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties which may include but is not limited to personal vehicle usage, mileage and the expense of gas required to travel to and from FEDEX locations for training and intra-company job transfers. 8. In violation of the applicable seotions of the California Labor Code and the requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order, FEDEX as a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure, intentionally, knowingly and systematically failed to properly compensate the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for all hours worked, by ‘CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINTCase 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 5 of 25 systematically deleting and/or reducing the true number of hours worked by employees. Specifically, FEDEX had in place a mutable timekeeping system that was incapable of accurately recording the true number of hours worked by employees. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF and the other Class Members forfeited hours worked and did not receive compensation for all hours worked, including but not limited to the overtime hours worked. This uniform policy and systematic practice of FEDEX was intended to purposefully avoid the payment of wages and premium wages required by California law which allows FEDEX to illegally profit and gain an unfair advantage over competitors. To the extent equitable tolling, operates to toll claims by the CLASS against FEDEX, the CLASS PERIOD should be adjusted accordingly. 9, FEDEX instituted a company-wide policy whereby FEDEX used a mutable timekeeping system in which hours could be unilaterally erased or altered by FEDEX such that there existed no immutable timekeeping system that accurately recorded the true number of hours worked by the Class Members. As a result, FEDEX regularly recorded reduced hours on employee time cards by not recording overtime hours worked in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226. Therefore, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members forfeited hours worked and did not receive compensation for all hours worked, including but not limited to the overtime hours worked. FEDEX also altered employee time cards by recording fictitious thirty (30) minute meal breaks on employee time cards so as to create the appearance that employees clocked out for a thirty (30) minute meal break. This practice was a direct result of FEDEX’s uniform policy and practice to deny employees uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal breaks throughout each workday. As a result, the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members also forfeited mandatory meal breaks cach workday without additional compensation in accordance with DEFENDANT ’s strict, corporate, and uniform guidelines, FEDEX also engaged in a common course of failing to reimburse the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties for DEFENDANT’s benefit. These systematic and company-wide policies and practices originating at the corporate level are the cause of the illegal pay practices as described herein. ‘GLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINTCase 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 6 of 25 10. PLAINTIFF brings this Action against FEDEX pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2) and/or (3), on behalf of herself and on behalf of a class consisting of all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for FEDEX in California during the CLASS PERIOD ("CLASS" or "Class Members"). The applicable "CLASS PERIOD" is defined as the period beginning on the date four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on a date as determined by the Court. 11. All non-exempt, hourly employees working for FEDEX in California are similarly situated in that they are all subject to FEDEX’s uniform policy and systematic practice that requires them to perform work without compensation as required by law 12. During the CLASS PERIOD, FEDEX uniformly violated the rights of the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members under California law, without limitation, in the following manners: (a) Violating California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010(7) and 11040(7) by failing to compensate the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for all hours worked, including straight time and overtime; (b) Violating California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010(7) and 11040(7), by failing to have in place an immutable timekeeping system capable of tracking, without mutation, all of the time the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members work that is not subject to unilateral modification and manipulation; (©) Violating California Labor Code Sections 204, 206.5, 510 and 1198, by failing to pay premium wages for hours worked in excess eight (8) in any workday and forty (40) in any workweek; (4) Violating California Labor Code Section 2802, by failing to reimburse employees for necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties for DEFENDANT; (©) Violating California Labor Code Section 226, by failing to provide the CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT ngaSecwraueorn = 12 13 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 7 of 25 (g) (h) PLAINTIFF and the Class Members with accurate itemized wage statements; Violating California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202, by failing to tender full payment and/or restitution of wages owed to employees whose employment with DEFENDANT has terminated; Violating Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., by committing acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Labor Code and public policy, by failing to provide the PLAINTIEF and the Class Members with uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal breaks; and, Violating Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., by committing acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Labor Code and publie policy, by failing to pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members wages for all hours worked as a result of altering the actual number of hours worked. 13. As aresult of FEDEX’s uniform policies, practices and procedures, there are numerous questions of law and fact common to all Class Members who worked for FEDEX in California during the CLASS PERIOD. These questions include, but are not limited to, the following: @) b) (©) @ © Whether FEDEX’s policies, practices and pattern of conduct described in this Complaint was and is unlawful; Whether FEDEX failed to accurately pay the PLAINTIFF and the Class Members for all hours worked, including overtime hours; Whether FEDEX instructed, programmed, or permitted employees to ‘state an incorrect number of hours worked; Whether FEDEX failed to maintain an immutable timekeeping system so as to record true and accurate time records for employees; Whether FEDEX failed to maintain true and accurate time records for ‘CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINTCase 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document Filed 02/03/11 Page 8 of 25 () (hy @ a (K) all hours worked by the Class Members; Whether FEDEX failed to reimburse employees for necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of their job duties; Whether FEDEX failed to provide employees with uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal breaks; Whether FEDEX failed to provide employees with accurate itemized ‘wage statements; Whether FEDEX’s compensatory time policy and practice complies with the requirements of Labor Code § 204.3; Whether FEDEX has engaged in unfair competition by the above-listed conduct; and, Whether FEDEX’s conduct was willful. 14, This Class Action meets the statutory prerequisites for the maintenance of a Class Action as set forth in Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2) and/or (3), in that @ (b) © The persons who comprise the CLASS are so numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the patties and the Court; Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the CLASS and will apply uniformly to every member of the CLASS; The claims of the representative PLAINTIEF are typical of the claims of each member of the CLASS. PLAINTIFF, like all the other Class Members, was not correctly compensated for all hours worked because of DEFENDANT’s company policies and practices the PLAINTIFF sustained economic injuries arising from FEDEX’s violations of the laws of California. PLAINTIFF and the Class Members are similarly or identically harmed by the same unfair, deceptive, unlawful and pervasive pattern of misconduct engaged in by FEDEX; and, ‘CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT,Cor aneon Case 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document Filed 02/03/11 Page 9 of 25 (4) ‘The representative PLAINTIFF will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the CLASS, and has retained counsel who are competent and experienced in Class Action litigation. There are no material conflicts between the claims of the representative PLAINTIFF and the Class Members that would make class certification inappropriate, Counsel for the CLASS will vigorously assert the claims of all Class Members. 15. _ In addition to meeting the statutory prerequisites to a Class Action, this Action is properly maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2) and/or (3), in that: (a) Without class certification and determination of declaratory, injunctive, statutory and other legal questions within the class format, prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the CLASS will create the tisk of: (i) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the CLASS which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the CLASS; or, ii) Adjudication with respect to individual members of the CLASS. which would as a practical matter be dispositive of interests of the other members not party to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; (b) The parties opposing the CLASS have acted on grounds generally applicable to the CLASS, making appropriate class-wide relief with respect to the CLASS as a whole in that FEDEX’s company policies and practices failed to compensate employees for all hours worked, and failed to properly apply the overtime rate of pay applicable to all hours worked in excess of eight (8) in any workday and forty (40) in any workweek; and, CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT “9Case 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 10 of 25 (©) Common questions of law and fact exist as to the Class Members and predominate over any question affecting only individual members, and Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, including consideration of: (The interests of the members of the CLASS in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (ii) The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the CLASS; (iii) The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (iv) The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a Class Action; and, (v) The basis of FEDEX’s policies and practices uniformly applied to all Class Members. 16. This Court should permit this Action to be maintained as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2) and/or (3), because: (a) (b) © (@) @) The questions of law and fact common to the CLASS predominate over any question affecting only individual members; A Class Action is superior to any other available method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the members of the CLASS; ‘The Class Members are so numerous that it is impractical to bring all Class Members before the Court; PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, will not be able to obtain effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a Class Action; There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal and equitable relief for the common law and statutory violations and other ce cae ~10-Case 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 11 of 25 improprieties, and in obtaining adequate compensation for the damages injuries which FEDEX’s actions have inflicted upon the CLASS; () There is a community of interest in ensuring that the combined assets and available insurance of EX are sufficient to adequately compensate the members of the CLASS for any injuries sustained; (g) FEDEX has acted or has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the CLASS, thereby making final class-wide relief appropriate with respect to the CLASS as a whole; and, (h) The Class Members are readily ascertainable from the business records of FEDEX. The CLASS consists of all of FEDEX’s non-exempt, hourly employees who of FEDEX in California who were subject to the above described uniform policies and practices in California during the applicable time period. JURISDICTION & VENUE 17, This Court has jurisdiction over the PLAINTIFF’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1331 and supplemental jurisdiction of the PLAINTIFF’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 18. Further, with respect to the state law class claims, these state law class claims are brought as a Class Action pursuant to Fed, R. Civ. Proc, Rule 23 on behalf of a class that exceeds 100 persons, that involves more than $5,000,000 in controversy, and where the citizenship of at least one member of the class is diverse from that of DEFENDANT. As a result, this Court also has original jurisdiction over the state law class claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (CAFA Jurisdiction). 19. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because: (i) DEFENDANT is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and therefore resides in this District; (ii) DEFENDANT maintains offices or facilities in this District; and, (iii) DEFENDANT committed the wrongful conduct against members of the CALIFORNIA ee ce eee eeeSenrr aAuewn i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 3:11-cv-00230-W -CAB Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 12.0f 25 CLASS in this District. For Unlawful, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices [Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code §§ 17200 er seq.] (By PLAINTIFF and the CLASS and against DEFENDANT) 20. PLAINTIFF, and the Class Members, reallege and incorporate by this reference, as though fully set forth herein, paragraphs | through 19 of this Complaint. 21, DEFENDANT is a "persons" as that term is defined under the California Business & Professions Code, Section 17021. 22. — Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code defines unfair competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Section 17200 applies to violations of labor laws in the employment context. Section 17203 authorizes injunctive, declaratory, and/or other equitable relief with respect to unfair competition as follows: Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair fay make such orders or judgments including thé appodttment of eoeiver 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 necessary to restore to any person in interest any money of property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition. 23. By the conduct alleged herein, FEDEX’s uniform policies and practices violated and continue to violate California law, and specifically provisions of the Wage Orders, the California Labor Code, including Sections 201, 202, 204, 204.3, 206.5, 210, 510 and 1198, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 11010 and 11040, for which this Court should issue equitable and injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 17203 of the California Business & Professions Code, including restitution of wages wrongfully withheld. 24, By the conduct alleged herein, FEDEX’s practices were unfair in that these practices violate publie policy, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous orsubstantially injurious to employees, and are without valid justification or utility, for which this Court should CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT