Opposition Objections

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 18, 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED ORDER Spencer C. Skeen, CA Bar No. 182216 spencer.skeen@ogletree.com Marlene M. Moffitt, CA Bar No. 223658 marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com Tim L. Johnson, CA Bar No. 265794 tim.johnson@ogletree.com OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: 858.652.3100 Facsimile: 858.652.3101 Attorneys for Defendant INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SHAILENDRA SINGH, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 17CV313202 [Assigned for all purposes to The Honorable Brian C. Walsh, Dept. 1] OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED ORDER AFTER HEARING GRANTING HIS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CONTINUING THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PERMIT DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 437 C(H) Action Filed: July 18, 2017 Trial Date: None set Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/9/2018 4:28 PM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #17CV313202 Envelope: 1704096 17CV313202 Santa Clara - Civil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED ORDER On July 6, 2018, the Court heard argument regarding Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for an Order Continuing the Hearing on Defendant’s Motion. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application in part and ordered Plaintiff to file a serve a Notice of Ruling. On July 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Proposed Order instead of a Notice of Ruling. Defendant objects to the Proposed Order because it misstates the Court’s ruling. Plaintiff’s Proposed Order The Court’s Ruling Re: Item #3: Plaintiff claims the Court ordered the parties to confer as to the timing of Defendant’s PMK deposition “as it relates to the outstanding discovery, including timing of the deposition.” The Court ordered the parties to confer about agreeing to apply the Court’s rulings on the pending discovery motions, set for hearing on August 10, 2018, to Plaintiff’s PMK deposition notice. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of Plaintiff’s Proposed Order with Item #3 stricken. DATED: July 9, 2018 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. By: Spencer C. Skeen Marlene M. Moffitt Tim L. Johnson Attorneys for Defendant INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. EXHIBIT 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Larry W. Lee, Esq. SBN 228175 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Attorneys for Plaintiff (Additional counsel on following page) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SHAILENDRA SINGH, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, VS. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 17CV313202 Assigned for All Purposes to Honorable Brian C. Walsh in Department 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CONTINUING THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PERMIT DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 437c(h) Date: July 6, 2018 Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept.: 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CONTINUING THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PERMIT DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CCP 437c(h) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile Edward W. Choi, State Bar No. 211334 Paul M. Yi, Esq. SBN 207867 LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, APLC 515 S. Figueroa St. Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-1515 Facsimile: (213) 465-4885 William L. Marder, Esq. (SSN 170131) POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CONTINUING THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PERMIT DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CCP 437c(h) 1 On July 6, 2018, Plaintiff Shailendra Singh's ("Plaintiff') Ex Parte Application for an 2 Order denying Defendant Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion for Summar 3 Judgment, currently scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on August 31, 2018, or, in the Alternative, for an 4 Order Continuing the Hearing on Defendant's Motion came on for hearing in Department 1 of 5 the above-entitled Court. Larry W. Lee of Diversity Law Group, P.C. appeared for Plaintiff. 6 Tim Johnson of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart appeared for Defendant. 7 After consideration of all papers and argument of counsel, the Court GRANTED 8 Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application. The Court ordered as follows: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1. 2. 3. 4. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is continued to 9:00a.m. on October 19, 2018 at 9:00a.m.; The Case Management Conference scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on August 31, 2018, is vacated and advanced to 10:00 a.m. on August 10, 2018; Plaintiff and Defendant are to meet and confer as to timing ofDefendant's persons most knowledgeable deposition as it relates to the outstanding discovery, including timing of the deposition; and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is subject to being further continued depending on the outcome of Plaintiffs motions to compel and the timing of the discovery Plaintiff seeks to oppose Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: , 2018 23 24 25 26 27 28 ------ HON. BRIAN C. WALSH Judge of the Superior Court 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CONTINUING THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PERMIT DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CCP 437c(h) 1 2 3 PROOF OF SERVICE (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1013a, 2015.5) 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ] ]ss. 5 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90071. On July 9, 2018, I served the following document(s) described as: [PROPOSED] ORDER AFTER HEARING GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CONTINUING THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PERMIT DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 437c(h) on the interested parties in this action as follows: Spencer C. Skeen Marlene M. Moffitt Tim L. Johnson Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, California 92122 Attorneys for Defendant Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order I caused the above- entitled docurnent(s) to be served through the Odyssey eFileCA E-Filing System at the website www.california.tylerhost.net, addressed to all parties appearing on the electronic service list for the above-entitled case. The service transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the filing receipt/confirmation will be filed, deposited, or maintained with the original document(s) in this office. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 9, 20 a Los Angeles, a i m. PROOF OF SERVICE Electronically filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/9/2018 4:28 PM Reviewed By:R. Walker Case #17CV313202 Env #1704096