Separate Statement

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

PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 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 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(b)(1) and California Rules of Court 3.1350, Plaintiff Shailendra Singh (“Plaintiff”) submits this Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed concurrently herewith. Undisputed Material Fact Evidence 1. Defendant is licensed by the State of California bureau of Security & Investigative Services (“BSIS”) a private patrol operator. Deposition of Defendant Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.’s person most knowledgeable Richard Stack (“Stack Depo”) 96:7- 96:21 2. Defendant employs security guards that are licensed by the BSIS. Stack Depo at 15:12-17; 21:12- 23:10 3. Defendant negotiates with its clients to enter a contact to provide security guards for its clients. Stack Depo 26:13-27:6 4. The contract would include the amount that the client will pay for security guard services. Stack Depo 28:2-28:8 5. The contract also dictates, for example, all of the vetting, on-boarding, recruiting and compliance with the terms dictated by the client; the purchasing of the uniforms; training components; benefit components; travel; purchases of equipment, vehicles and other items to provide this security service. Stack Depo 32:1-32:25 6. Defendant’s clients never pay the security guards for their services directly. Stack Depo 28:9-28:14 7. Each of Defendant’s security guards are paid directly by Defendant. Stack Depo 28:15-28:19 8. Once a contract is obtained, Defendant will hire security guards to assign to its client’s locations. Stack Depo 15:18-16:7 9. Defendant sets the rate of pay that is to be paid to its security guards. Stack Depo 28:20-29:11 10. Defendant has the right to discipline its employees by issuing letters of reprimand, suspension or termination Stack Depo 63:24-68:14 - 4 - PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 Undisputed Material Fact Evidence 11. Defendant’s clients have the right to approve the security guards or reject a security guard that is placed in its location. Stack Depo 100:11-100:25 12. When a security guard is removed from a specific client’s site, at the client’s request, Defendant has the right to re-assign the security guard to another assignment. RJN Exhibit 5 (November 1, 2017, Transcript of Audio recording of CA Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board Hearing Shailendra Singh, Case Numbers 6025851, 6025852, 6025853, 6025854 (“UI Appeal”) 23:1-24:1; Declaration of Shailendra Singh ¶¶ 2-6. DATED: December 14, 2018 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES By: ____________ Larry W. Lee Edward W. Choi Attorneys for Plaintiff