Response Reply

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

1 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 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 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: January 25, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 1 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 12/14/2018 11:05 AM Reviewed By: R. Walker Case #17CV313202 Envelope: 2278889 17CV313202 Santa Clara - Civil 2 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 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 3 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 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 Pursuant to Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(b)(3), Plaintiff submits this Response to Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff SHAILENDRA SINGH(“Plaintiff”). MOVING PARTIES’ UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ISSUE 1: ALL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WORKED AT THE SAME CLIENT FOR OVER 90 DAYS. 1. Plaintiff was employed by Inter-Con as a security guard from March 2015 through May 2017. (Moffitt Decl., Ex. 3 [Resp. SPROG Nos. 3, 4] and Ex. 4 [Singh Depo.] at 52:6-19) 1. Undisputed. 2. Plaintiff was hired by Inter-Con to work for its client California Highway Patrol ("CHP") client. (Moffitt Decl., Ex. 2 [Resp. RFA No.2]) 2. Undisputed. 3. When Plaintiff was employed by InterCon, he only worked for its CHP client. (Moffitt Decl., Ex. 2 [Resp. RFA No. 4.]; McOsker Decl., ¶3; Moffitt Decl., Ex. 1 [ICSOOOI45- 000171]) 3. Undisputed, but immaterial. 4. When Plaintiff was employed by InterCon, he only worked at the DMV location in San Jose, California. (Moffitt Decl., Ex. 2 [Resp. RFA No. 6]; McOsker Decl., ¶3; Moffitt Decl., Ex. 1 [ICSOOOI45- 000171] and Ex. 4 [Singh Depo.] at 52:6-19) 4. Undisputed, but immaterial. 4 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 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 ISSUE 2: ALL OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE INTER-CON IS NOT A "TEMPORARY SERVICES EMPLOYER" UNDER LABOR CODE SECTION 201.3. 5. Inter-Con is a security service company that provides guard services for government and commercial clients. (McOsker Decl., ¶ 2.) 5. Undisputed. 6. Plaintiff was employed by Inter-Con as a security guard from March 2015 through May 2017. (Moffitt Decl., Ex. 3 [Resp. SPROG Nos. 3, 4] and Ex. 4 [Singh Depo.] at 52:6-19) 6. Undisputed. 7. Inter-Con provided Plaintiff and its other guards with Inter-Con equipment like uniforms and radios. (McOsker Decl., ¶ 2; Moffitt Decl., Ex. 4 [Singh Depo.] at 54:3-55:3 and 137:21-138:8.) 7. Undisputed, but immaterial. 8. Plaintiff viewed Inter-Con as his employer. (Moffitt Decl., Ex. 4 [Singh Depo.] at 51:10-52:19) 8. Undisputed. 9. Plaintiff wore an Inter-Con uniform, unlike DMV employees who did not wear a uniform. (Moffitt Decl., Ex. 4 [Singh Depo.] at 54:3-55:3) 9. Undisputed, but immaterial. 10. Plaintiff performed a different job than the DMV employees. (Moffitt Decl., Ex. 4 [Singh Depo.] at 123:6-1 7 and 124:13- 125:11.) 10. Undisputed, but immaterial 5 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 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 11. Plaintiff works as a security guard for Monument at a single post at a Safeway store in Millbrae. (Moffitt Decl., Ex. 4 [Singh Depo.] at 46:22-47:4) 11. Undisputed, but immaterial. 12. Plaintiff is paid twice a month as a security guard for Monument. (Moffitt Decl., Ex. 4 [Singh Depo.] at 47:20-21) 12. Undisputed, but immaterial. DATED: December 14, 2018 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Larry W. Lee Edward W. Choi Attorneys for Plaintiff