SUM-100 summons mummgm (CITACION JUDICIAL) as. NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: FILED (A vrso AL DEMANDADO): SUPERIOR 0%011]! 0 ii Intermex Wire Transfer, LLC, a corporation, and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, 6 YOU Ana BEING suao ev PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): TERRY CLERK Myrna. Arias, an individual, BY DEPUTY You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard uniess you respond within 30 days. Read the information betow. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are sewed on you to ?le a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can ?nd these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center your county law library. or the courthouse nearest you. if you cannot pay the ?ting fee. ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. if you do not ?le your response on time. you may lose the case by defautt. and your wages, money. and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney. you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney. you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonpro?t legal services program. You can iocate these nonpro?t grOUps at the California Legal Services Web site (wwaawlieipcaiifornia.org). the California Courts Online Self-Help Center or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court?s lien must he paid before the court will dismiss the case. 1A Lo hari demandado. Si no responds dentro de 30 dies. ta corte pueoe decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lee is informaci?n a contiri uacr'on. Tiene 30 DIAS DE despu?s de que ie entreguen esta citacion papeles isgales para presenter una respuesia por escriio en esta certs tracer true so enrregue one copia a! deinandante. Una cane a una iiamao?a teiefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesra por escn?to tiene que ester on formats reg-at oarreoto at doses qua procesan su case en in aorta. Es nosibie que haya un formuiario que usted pueda user para so respuesta. Puerie enconfrar esios iormuian'os do in eerie mas infonnacion an at Centre de Ayuda de ias Cortes de California en ia bibiioteca do (eyes do so condao?o 0 en I?a corte que la queo'e mas cerca. Si no puede pager ia cuota do presentacion. pida ai secretario de la corte qua ie as on formuiario de exencion de pago ole cuotas. Si no presents an respuesta a tiempo. puede perder at ease nor incumpiimiento la aorta is poo?ra? quitar su sueido. dinero bienes sin mas adveriencia. Hay otros requisites iagales. Es recomendabie que items a un abogado inmeo'i?atamente. Si no conoce a un abogao'o. pueo?e llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados Si no puede pager a un abogado, es posibie qua cumpia con ios requisites para obtener servicios iegaies gratuitos do on programs de servicios iegaies sin ?nes de iucro. Puecie enoontrar estos grupos sin ?nes de iucro en a! sifio web de California Leger Services, an at Centre de Ayuda de- ias Cortes de Caiifomia. poni?ndose en contacto con la corte or coiegio o?e abogados iocales. A WSO: Parley. ta corte tiene derecho a reciarnar ias cuotas ios costos exentos porimponer un gravamen sobre cuaiquier recuperacion do $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante uri acuerdo 0 one concesion do arbitrate en on case do derecho civii. Tiene que paper at gravamen de la corre antes de que ia corte- pueda desechar ei caso. The name and address of the court is: . I case NUMBER: I hombre direcci?n de la corte es): Superior Court. State of Cahforma mg 2? f} Lg 59 County of Kern, MctroPolitan Division 1415 Truxtun Avenue, Bakers?eld, California 93301 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney. is: (Ei hombre, ta direcoion at nomero de tei?fono dei abogado dei demandante. 0 def demandante que no tiene abogado, es): TERRY VANESA JACKSON . DATE. 6 Clerk. by i Deputy ERK (Secretario) (Adjunto) (For proctor service of this summons. use Proof of Service of Summons {form (Para prueba ole entrega de esta citation use at formuiarr?o Proof of Service of Summons, NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served '35? 1. l:l as an individual defendant. 2. as the person sued underthe ?ctitious name of (specify): 3, on behalf of (spectral): under: EZI CCP 416.10 (corporation) con 416.60 (minor) [3 GOP 415.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) :1 GOP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) I: other (specify): 4. :1 by personal delivery on (date): Fag 1 of1 Form Adapted for Mandatory Use Code orCiv?il Procedure 412.20 465 Judicial Council of California SUMMONS wI-rwngir?nrooa' gov SUM-100 [Rev July 1,2009] await. Hearihg Date: Time ima- ALEXANDER KRAKOW GLICK Lupe? Rb 3120 arseq. Gail A. Glick (State Bar No. 13'4293) Brett C. Beeler (State Bar No. 287749) FILED 401 WI'Shire Bouleva I?d) SUITE 1000 SUPERIORCOURT. METROPOLITAN DIVISION Santa Monica, California 90401 COUNTY OF KERN T: 310 394 0888 I F: 310 394 0811 E: I bbeeler@akgilp.com MAY 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff JERRY MYRNA ARIAS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BAKERSFIELD MYRNA ARIAS, an individual, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: OF PRIVACY - INTRUSION INTO PRIVATE 2) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE ?1102.5; 3) PAGA - VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 5 1102.5 (Cal. Lab. Code ?2698, et seq); 4) INTERFERENCE WITH 5) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC and BUSINESS PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF BUSINESS PROFESSIONS CODE 17200 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED vs. INTERMEX WIRE TRANSFER, LLC, a corporation, and DOES 1 through 30, Inclusive, i i I Defendants. I i I Plaintiff MYRNA ARIAS, an individual. alieges: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff MYRNA ARIAS ("Piaintiff" or ?Arias?) is, and at all relevant times mentioned was, an individual residing in the State of California, County of Kern. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ?7 Cd 3 Sta: tr 'She was employed by the Defendants (collectively, ?lntermex?) from approximately February 10, 2014 May 5, 2014, as a Sales Executive, Account Manager in Bakersfield. 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant INTERMEX WIRE TRANSFER, LLC ("Defendant" or "lntermex") is, and at all times mentioned was, a Florida corporation, doing business in the State of California, Counties of Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside. 3. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued as DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, and by reason thereof sues these Defendants under such fictitious names. When their true names and capacities have been ascertained, Piaintiff will amend this Complaint to reflect the same. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that such fictitiously named Defendants were the agents, servants, and employees of each of the named Defendants and, in doing the acts and things hereinafter alleged, were at all times acting within the course and scope of said agency, servitude, and employment and with the permission, consent, and approval, or subsequent ratification, of each of the named Defendants. Plaintiff farther alleges that Defendants constituted an "integrated enterprise? and ?integrated employers? with interrelated operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership and/or financial control. Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants were, at all times relevant hereto, the alter egos of each other, and/or the agents of each other. Whenever reference is made to Defendants, it is intended to include all of the named Defendants as well as the DOE Defendants. Each of the fictitiously named DOE Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged and proximately caused Plaintiff?s damages. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 4. lntermex hired Plaintiff Myma Arias as a Sales Executive, Account Manager on February 10, 2014 in Bakersfield. John Stubits, Regional Vice President of Sales, recruited Plaintiff to join Intermex while she was working for NetSpend Corporation 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (?NetSpend?), where she had been employed for. over five years. Stubits was aware of the high quality of Plaintiff?s work from their time working together at NetSpend. 5. As a condition of accepting employment with lntermex, Plaintiff asked to be allowed to continue working at NetSpend for at least three months during the waiting period to become eligible for lnterrnex's medical insurance benefit. Mr. Stubits, Plaintiff?s supervisor at Intermex, granted permission for Plaintiff to continue working for NetSpend so that she could continue to receive medical benefits from Netspend. Plaintiff told Stubits that she was having health issues she was suffering from a disabling Vitamin 812 deficiency, for which she was in the process of undergoing significant medical treatment under a physicians' supervision. 6. Plaintiff did an excellent job at lntermex. She met her quotas and received no discipline during her employment. Plaintiff earned approximately $7,250 per month, including commission, at lntermex. 7. in April 2014, lnterrnex asked Plaintiff and other employees to download an application called Xora to their smart phones. Xora contained a global positioning system function which tracked the exact location of the person possessing the smart phones on which it was installed. After researching the app and speaking with a trainer from Xora, Plaintiff and her co-workers asked whether lntermex would be monitoring their movements while off duty. Stubits admitted that employees would be monitored while off duty and bragged that he knew how fast she was driving at specific moments ever since she had installed the app on her phone. Plaintiff expressed that she had no problem with the app?s GPS function during work hours, but she objected to the monitoring of her location during non?work hours and complained to Stubits that this was an invasion of her privacy. She likened the app to a prisoner?s ankle bracelet and informed Stubits that his actions were illegal. Stubits replied that she should tolerate the illegai intrusion because Intermex was paying Plaintiff more than NetSpend. He confirmed that she was required to keep her phone's power on "24/7" to answer phone 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY calls from clients. Stubits scolded Plaintiff when she die-?installed the app in late April 2014 in order to protect her privacy. 8. On May 5, 2014, within just a few weeks of Plaintiff?s objection to the use of the Xora app on privacy grounds, lnterrnex fired Plaintiff. 9. To add insult to injury, Plaintiff is informed and believes that after Intermex terminated Plaintiff, Robert Lisy, lntermex?s President and CEO, telephoned John Nelson, Vice President of NetSpend, and informed Nelson that Plaintiff had been disloyal to NetSpend and was employed by lntermex. As a result of Lisy's intentional and malicious interference with Plaintiff's contract with NetSpend, NetSpend fired Plaintiff NetSpend specifically cited Lisy?s phone call as the reason for the decision to terminate Plaintiff. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (invasion of Privacy Intrusion lnto Private Affairs Against All Defendants and Does 1?10) 10. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above, inclusive as though fully set forth here. 11. Plaintiffs whereabouts and conduct while off duty, was private and highly confidential. A reasonable person would have an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of such information. 12. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her own conduct and whereabouts while off duty. 13. Defendant?s Regional Vice President of Sales, John Stubits, intentionally intruded on Plaintiff's privacy when he monitored Plaintiffs driving behavior and whereabouts on weekends. Plaintiff is unsure to what extent other managers and coworkers intentionally intruded on her privacy. 14. This intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. . 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY '15. Plaintiff was harmed as a result of the conduct of Defendants, and the Deferrdants? conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff?s harm. 16. Esddomic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered and will suffer special damages for lost earnings and wages in an amount not yet fully known, but in excess of $500,000.00. 17. Nonecddomis damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered general damages including, but not limited to, damage to her reputation, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional distress, all in an amount to be proved at trial. 18. Exemplary and punitive damages. Defendants, by their conduct as set forth above, have engaged in despicable conduct, exposing Plaintiff to crUel and unjust hardship, with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff, and with conscious disregard of his rights. Defendants occupied a position of trust which gave them power to damage Plaintist ability to earn a livelihood. Defendants abused that position of trust by maliciously, fraudulently, and Oppressively discharging Plaintiff and intentionally interfering with her contract with NetSperid. Defendants' conduct was carried out by and ratified by one or more of Defendants? managing agents, and it was willful and oppressive and done in conscious disregard of her rights. Plaintiff is therefore eatitled to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 19. Rati?cation. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants, and each of them, were at all relevant times aware of the conduct of each of the other Defendants and approved and ratified that conduct. HI HI 5 FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL SECDND CAUSE QF ACTIQN (Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 Against All Defendants and Does 1?20) 20. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above, inclusive as though fully set forth here. 21. Plaintiff complained to Defendants that Defendants were violating her co?workers' and her rights of privacy by requiring them to download the GPS tracking device -- Xora application to their smart phones and intruding into their private affairs in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution (right of privacy), Section 637.7 of the Penal Code (prohibiting the use of GPS to track another person), Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code (prohibiting employers from engaging in unfair business practices), and California common law. 22. Plaintiff opposed Defendants? insistence that she keep her telephone with the tracking application with the power on at all times because it improperly invaded her co-workers? and her rights of privacy. Plaintiff voiced to Defendants that she believed this was akin to monitoring her like a criminal. Plaintiff spoke with her co-workers about her. opposition to the requirement that the workers use the application after work hours. 23. By their conduct as set forth above, Defendants retaliated against and terminated Plaintiff for complaining about, protesting with her co-workers, and refusing to participate in activity that would have resulted in a violation of her rights and state or federal constitutions and statutes, including the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1, in violation of California Labor Code 1102.5(b) and 24. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants? conduct, and Defendants? conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff?s harm. 25. Economic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered and will suffer special damages for lost earnings and wages in an amount not yet fully known, but in excess of 6 FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL $500,000.00. 26. Nen-esenomic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered general damages including, but not limited to, damage to her reputation, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional distress, all in an amount to be proved at trial. 27. Exemptary and punitive damages. Defendants, by their conduct as set forth above, have engaged in despicable conduct, exposing Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff, and with conscious disregard of his rights. Defendants occupied a position of trust which gave them power to damage Plaintiff's ability to earn a livelihood. Defendants abused that position of trust by maliciously, fraudulently, and Oppressively discharging Plaintiff and intentionally interfering with her contract with NetSpend. Defendants? conduct was carried out by and ratified by one or more of Defendants' managing agents, and it was willful and oppressive and done in conscious disregard of her rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 28. Ratification. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants, and each of them, were at all relevant times aware of the conduct of each of the other Defendants and approved and ratified that conduct. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTEDN Private Attorney General Act (Violation of California Labor Code 11025 - Against All Defendants and Does 1-30) 29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above, inclusive as though fully set forth here. 30. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the general public, alleges that on or about May 5, 2015, she provided written notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and Defendants of the specific violations of the California 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY Labor Code Defendants have violated and continue to violate. 31. Pursuant to Labor Code section if no response is received from the LWDA within 33 days of the postmarked date of the May 5, 2015 letter, or if the LWDA declines to investigate the matter, Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative procedures required of him under Labor Code 2698, 2699 and 2699.3, and, as a result, is justified as a matter of right in bringing forward this cause of action. Plaintiff will amend her complaint in the event the LWDA informs her that it will investigate her claims under the Labor Code. 32. As a result of the acts alleged above, Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code 2698 and 2699 because of Defendants? violations of the provisions of the California Labor Code set forth in this Complaint. 33. Pursuant to California Labor Code 2699, Plaintiff should be awarded twenty~five percent of all penalties due under California law, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. FDURTH CAUSE OF ACTEON (lntentional interference with Contract -- Against All Defendants and Does 1-25) 34. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above, inclusive as though fully set forth here. 35. There was a contract of employment between Plaintiff and NetSpend. 36. Defendant lntermex knew that Plaintiff was employed with NetSpend. 37. Defendant's conduct interfered with Plaintiff's contract with NetSpend by informing NetSpend that Plaintiff was disloyal and that she was employed with Defendant lntermex. Defendant?s conduct prevented performance of the contract that Plaintiff had with NetSpend. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL '38. Defendant intended to disrupt the performance of this contract or knew that disruption of performance was certain or substantially certain to occur. 39. Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. 40. Economic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered and will suffer special damages for lost earnings and wages in an amount not yet fully known, but in excess of $500,000.00. 41. Non-economic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered general damages including, but not limited to, damage to her reputation, pain and suffering, humiliation, embanassment, and emotional distress, all in an amount to be proved at trial. 42. Exemplary and punitive damages. Defendants, by their conduct as set forth above, have engaged in despicable conduct, exposing Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff, and with conscious disregard of his rights. Defendants occupied a position of trust which gave them power to damage Plaintist ability to earn a livelihood. Defendants abused that position of trust by maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressiver discharging Plaintiff and intentionally interfering with her contract with NetSpend. Defendants? conduct was carried out by and ratified by one or more of Defendants? managing agents, and it was willful and oppressive and done in conscious disregard of her rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 43. Ratification. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants, and each of them, were at all relevant times aware of the conduct of each of the other Defendants and approved and ratified that conduct. 9 FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FIFTH CAUSE 0F ACTEON (Negligent interference with Prospective Economic Relations Against All Defendants and Does l~30) 44. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above, inclusive as though fully set forth here. 45. Plaintiff and NetSpend were in an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in a future economic benefit to Plaintiff. 46. 47. Defendant lntermex knew or should have known of this relationship. Defendant knew or should have known that this relationship would be disrupted if it failed to act with reasonable care. I 48. 49. Defendant failed to act with reasonable care. Defendant engaged in wrongful, fraudulent and defamatory conduct towards Plaintiff by telling her that she was allowed to work for lntermex and NetSpend at the same time and asserting to NetSpend that she was disloyal to NetSpend and that she was employed by lntermex. 50. Plaintiff's relationship with NetSpend was disrupted as a direct result of Defendant's conduct - NetSpend terminated Plaintiff's employment relationship with NetSpend. 51. Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendant's wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 52. Economic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered and will suffer special damages for lost earnings and wages in excess of $500,000.00. 53. Nonueconomic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered general damages including, but not limited to, damage to her reputation, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional distress, all in an amount to be proved at trial. 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 54. Exemplary and punitive damages. Defendants, by their conduct as set forth above, have engaged in despicable conduct, exposing Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff, and with conscious disregard of his rights. Defendants occupied a position of trust which gave them power to damage Plaintiff's ability to earn a livelihood. Defendants abused that position of trust by maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively discharging Plaintiff and intentionally interfering with her contract with NetSpend. Defendants? conduct was carried out by and ratified by one or more of Defendants? managing agents, and it was willful and oppressive and done in conscious disregard of her rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 55. Ratification. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants, and each of them, were at all relevant times aware of the conduct of each of the other Defendants and approved and ratified that conduct. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTEON (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Against All Defendants and Does 1-30) 56. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above, inclusive as though fully set forth here. 57. Plaintiff?s termination was in violation of fundamental, basic, and substantial public policies of the State of California, including, but not limited to, section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code, section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, Article I, Section of the California Constitution, and Section 637.7 of the California Penal Code. 58. Defendant fired Plaintiff for refusing to abide its requirement that she and her coworkers allow Defendant to monitor their off duty conduct and whereabouts in violation of their rights of privacy. 1 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY 59. Plaintiff was harmed as a result of Defendants? conduct, and Defendant?s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. 60. Econemic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered and will suffer special - damages for lost earnings and wages in an amount not yet fully known, but in excess of $500,000.00. 61. Non-economic damages. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered general damages including, but not limited to, damage to her reputation, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional distress, all in an amount to be proved at trial. 62. Exemplary and punitive damages. Defendants, by their conduct as set forth above, have engaged in despicable conduct, exposing Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff, and with conscious disregard of his rights. Defendants occupied a position of trust which gave them power to damage Plaintiff's ability to earn a livelihood. Defendants abused that position of trust by maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively discharging Plaintiff and intentionally interfering with her contract with NetSpend. Defendants? conduct was carried out by and ratified by one or more of Defendants? managing agents, and it was willful and oppressive and done in conscious disregard of her rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 63. Ratification. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants, and each of them, were at all relevant times aware of the conduct of each of the other Defendants and approved and ratified that conduct. HI 12 FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL SEVENTH CAUSE OF (Unfair Business Practices Under Cal. Bus. 8: Prof. Code 17200 Against All Defendants and Does 1-30) - -- Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above, inclusive as though fully set forth here. 65. Defendants engaged in illegal, unfair business practices in violation of Plaintiff?s and her co?workers? rights, as alleged above. 66. As a result of Defendants' unfair business practices, Defendants have reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiff and her former co?workers. Defendants should be required to restore these monies to Plaintiff and her former co?workers. In the absence of injunctive equitable relief, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury, which cannot readily be remedied by damage remedies. Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants, including, but not limited to, an order that prohibits Defendants from monitoring their employees? off duty whereabouts and conduct in violation of their rights of privacy. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: AS TO THE SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION: 1. For reasonable attorney?s fees and costs pursuant to the Labor Code and PAGA, Section 2699(9) of the California Labor Code; AS TO THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF 2. For injunctive relief; AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: 3. For general and special damages, according to proof, with interest thereon at the maximum legal rate from and after May 5, 2014; 4. For punitive damages; 5. For costs of suit incurred by Plaintiff; and 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL DATED: May 5,2015 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. ALEXANDER KRAKOW GLICK LLP- - Am Gail GHEK Brett C. Beeler Attorneys for Piaintiff MYRNA ARIAS 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL DEMAND FGR JURY TRIAE Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury. DATED: May 5, 2015 ALEXANDER KRAKOW GLICK LLP M. Gii?k Brett C. Beeler Attorneys for Plaintiff MYRNA ARIAS 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL