Carlos Anaya v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
I. Background
Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt maintenance technician for Defendants from 2016 to 2018. First Amended Complaint, Dkt. # 1-2 (“FAC”), ¥ 4. On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, asserting numerous violations of the California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code on behalf of “[a]ll persons who worked for Defendants as non- exempt, hourly paid employees in California, within four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint until the date of trial.” Complaint, Dkt. # 1-1, J] 38, 126. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 23, 2019, asserting ten causes of action: First Cause of Action: Unpaid overtime, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1198. FAC q§) 72. Second Cause of Action: Unpaid minimum wages, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198. FAC 4§ 79.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. ED CV 21-1603 PSG (KKx) Date November 29, 2021 Title Carlos Anaya, et al. v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., et al.