Sacramento supermarket chain Viva Supermarket filed a motion to quash a Department of Labor investigation Tuesday that the lawsuit alleges is nothing but a smear campaign against its principal, Sean Loloee, and his candidacy for local political position. The case centers around subpoenas issued for the company’s bank records, which the company claims violate federal laws and regulations.
Loloee announced his candidacy for Sacramento City Council in February 2020, and shortly thereafter the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor notified him that one of his stores was under investigation. According to the lawsuit, a local union organizer, who was allegedly affiliated with Loloee’s opponent, threatened him with the investigation prior to Loloee receiving official notification from the WHD. This unionizer had apparently been in contact with the WHD and spoken to the investigator weeks before the investigation began.
“The first investigation did not occur through open, diligent and well-intentioned hard work on the part of the WHD. It was prompted by secretive communications between a WHD representative and union organizer who was hell-bent on smearing Loloee and defeating his election. Attacking his businesses was her objective, and she made it WHD’s objective too,” the lawsuit states.
Loloee complied with the investigation, and an agreement was met in May 2020. However, after he was elected as a member of the City Council in November 2020, he received another notification from the WHD that it was investigating his compliance with the Families First Coronavirus Response Action and the Fair Labor Standards Act. He provided the documents requested, including bank records for four of Viva Supermarket locations for the period of November 2, 2017 to the present. Despite Loloee’s production of financial information, the WHD issued subpoenas to two of his banks in October 2021 for the period of October 23, 2017 to present, according to court documents.
The lawsuit claims these subpoenas should be quashed because Loloee did not receive proper notice requirements from the WHD under Section 3405 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act and because they do not satisfy the four Powell factors, which require a government agency to demonstrate that: (1) the administrative investigation is conducted pursuant to a lawfully authorized legitimate purpose; (2) the subpoena seeks information reasonably relevant to the investigation; (3) the information sought is not already within the agency’s possession; and, (4) all administrative requirements are satisfied. Counsel argues that none of these requirements were met.
Plaintiffs are seeking at minimum a protective order to prevent the disclosure of the subpoenaed records to third parties. They are represented by Downey Brand LLP.
