[257
Cal.Rptr.3d 104] APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court
of San Joaquin County, Roger Ross, Judge. Affirmed in part
and reversed in part.
Page 958
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 959
COUNSEL
Robert
J. Wasserman, Vladimir J. Kozina and Mayall Hurley P.C.,
Stockton, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Chamberlin
& Keaster LLP, Robert W. Keaster, Encino, and David M. Berke
for Defendant and Respondent.
OPINION
MURRAY,
J.
Page 960
The
Legislature has enacted statutory requirements concerning
itemized wage statements employers must provide employees
along with their paychecks. In this case, Plaintiff Mohammed
Noori sued his former employer, defendant Countrywide Payroll
& HR Solutions, Inc., for violations of those statutory
requirements. He alleged, inter alia, that Countrywide
violated Labor Code section 226, subdivision
(a)[1] by (1) providing wage statements
bearing the acronym "CSSG" in violation of the
requirement to include the "name ... of the legal entity
that is the employer"; and (2) failing to maintain
copies of accurate itemized wage statements.[2] Noori also
sought to bring those claims under the Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA). The trial court granted Countrywides
demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to
amend.
On
appeal, Noori contends the trial court erred in finding (1)
the wage statements provided to Noori, as a matter of law,
complied with section 226, subdivision (a)(8) s requirement
to include the employers name; (2) Countrywide maintained
copies of wage statements as required by section 226,
subdivision (a); and (3) Noori failed to satisfy the notice
requirement for bringing a claim under PAGA.
We
conclude the amended complaint states a claim under section
226, subdivision (a)(8) for failure to provide the employers
name. Nooris allegation that Countrywides wage statements
bore only the acronym "CSSG," an abbreviation of a
fictitious business name, adequately supports this claim. We
also conclude Noori satisfied the notice requirement for
bringing that claim under PAGA. Accordingly, we reverse the
trial courts orders as to those two causes of action.
As to
the failure to maintain copies of accurate itemized wage
statements claim, we affirm the trial courts order granting
the demurrer without leave to amend because Nooris complaint
fails to assert facts supporting the injury element.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The First Amended Complaint
Following
a successful demurrer, Noori filed an amended complaint
alleging Countrywide violated section 226, subdivision (a) by
(1) failing to furnish
Page 961
"accurate itemized wage statements" (the
"failure to furnish claim"); and (2) failing to
maintain copies of accurate itemized wage statements (the
"failure to maintain claim"). He also sought class
certification, as well as to bring the claims under PAGA (§
2698).
[257
Cal.Rptr.3d 105] The Failure to Furnish
Claim
As to
his first claim, Noori alleged that in 2015, he began working
for Countrywide. Countrywide furnished him wage statements
that listed the employer of record as "CSSG." Noori
alleged that based on research, CSSG stood for
"Countrywide Staffing Solutions Group," which is
not a name listed with the California Secretary of state, but
is a fictitious business name for defendant Countrywide
Payroll & HR Solutions, Inc. "at least in some
States."[3] He further alleged that, based on
research, Countrywide Staffing Solutions Group, Inc. operates
under the fictitious business name of "Countrywide
HR" or "CWHR" in California.
Noori
alleged the wage statements violated section 226, subdivision
(a)(8) by failing to show the name of his
employer.[4] He further alleged that he and other
employees "suffered injury as a result of Defendants
knowing and intentional failure to comply with Labor Code
section 226(a)." He maintained that he and other
employees were injured, under section 226 subdivision (e)(2),
because they were unable to "promptly and easily
determine the name ... of the legal entity " from the
furnished statements.
The Failure to Maintain Claim
As to
his second claim, Noori alleged that prior to his suit, he
wrote to Countrywide, requesting copies of his "payroll
records, personnel records and personnel file."
Countrywide, in response, provided records that failed to
show the employers name and address. Based on this, he
alleged that Countrywide violated section 226 subdivision (a)
s requirement to maintain a copy of accurate itemized wage
statements.
The Private Attorney General Act Allegations
Seeking to also bring the above claims under PAGA, Noori
alleged that he satisfied PAGAs statutory notice requirement
by sending a letter to Countrywide and the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency notifying them of the specific
Labor Code provisions violated and facts and theories in
support. Noori then brought suit after the agency did not
provide notice that it intended to sue.
Page 962
Countrywides Demurrer
Countrywide demurred to the amended complaint arguing neither
of the first two causes of action stated a claim. As to the
failure to furnish claim, Countrywide argued each wage
statement identified the employer as CSSG, an acronym for
Countrywide Staffing Solutions Group, a fictious business
name of Countrywide. Countrywide maintained that the use of a
fictious business name is proper, and it need not ...