Statement Case Management Conference

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 JOINT FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT 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 LISTED ON NEXT PAGE Spencer C. Skeen, CA Bar No. 182216 spencer.skeen@ogletree.com Marlene M. Moffitt, Bar No. 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, 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 JOINT FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: June 28, 2019 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept.: 1 /// Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 6/21/2019 2:58 PM Reviewed By: System System Case #17CV313202 Envelope: 3040099 17CV313202 Santa Clara - Civil System System 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 2 JOINT FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT ADDITIONAL COUNSEL 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 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 3 JOINT FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT Plaintiff SHAILENDRA SINGH (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. (“Defendant” or “Inter-Con”) (Plaintiff and Defendant are collectively referred to as the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this Joint Further Status Conference Statement. I. PLAINTIFF’S UPDATE On June 12, 2018, Defendant filed and served its 1st MSJ. The Contrary to Defendant’s misrepresentations to this Court, Defendant did in fact seek summary judgment based on the 90- day exemption. On March 19, 2019, after losing its 1st MSJ and vehemently arguing against the Court’s interpretation of Labor Code § 201.3, Defendant has brought a repetitive motion for summary judgment that directly contradicts the arguments and positions taken in Defendant’s 1st MSJ, including in oral arguments made to the Court. Defendant’s 2nd In the event Defendant’s 2 MSJ is set for hearing on the same date of this Status Conference. nd II. DEFENDANT’S UPDATE MSJ is denied, as requested by Plaintiff, Plaintiff plans on conducting further discovery, including documents, employee data and further PMK deposition(s) and thereafter will be ready to proceed with trial. Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). Plaintiff alleges Inter-Con violated Labor Code § 201.3, which requires a temporary services employer to pay certain employees on a weekly basis. The weekly pay requirement does not apply to employees like Plaintiff who were “assigned to work for a client for 90 consecutive calendar days.” On March 18, 2019, Inter-Con filed its Second Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”). The Motion is based on this Court’s construction of Labor Code section 201.3 in its order of January 29, 2019. The Court found the 90-day exception requires analysis of timing and intent: namely, whether “at the outset” of assignment, the employer intended the assignment to last for more than 90 days. The second motion addresses the issues of timing and intent and the new legal standard set by the Court which was never briefed in the prior motion. Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co., 181 Cal. App. 4th 60, 72 (2010). Given the dearth of authority interpreting the 90- 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 4 JOINT FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT day exception prior to the initial summary judgment motion and the absence of any authority applying timing and intent requirements to this statute, the Court’s interpretation also constitutes new circumstances and law justifying the Motion. As shown in the Motion, the undisputed facts show Inter-Con assigned Plaintiff to work under the CHP contract and “intended at the outset” that the assignment would last for over 90 days. At the time of his hire, Inter-Con only had one client it could assign Plaintiff due to his qualifications and location (the Bay Area) - CHP. Each of Inter-Con’s contracts have distinct requirements and they use different recruiters to assign applicants to a particular contract. In fact, Plaintiff worked on the CHP contract for over two years. The Motion is scheduled to be heard on the same day as the continued case management conference. An order granting the Motion would potentially dispose of all issues in this action. Therefore, Inter-Con requests that the case management conference be continued 60 days to allow time for the Court to consider and rule on the Motion and that further discovery be stayed until that time as well. DATED: June __, 2019 Respectfully submitted, DIVERSITY LAW GROUP LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES By: /s/ Edward W. Choi Larry W. Lee Edward W. Choi Attorneys for Plaintiff SHAILENDRA SINGH DATED: June __, 2019 Respectfully submitted, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART By: /s/ Marlene M. Moffitt Spencer C. Skeen Marlene M. Moffitt Tim L. Johnson Attorneys for Defendant INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90071. On June 21, 2019, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: JOINT FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT, on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof, in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Spencer C. Skeen Marlene M. Moffitt Tim L. Johnson OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Larry W. Lee Nick Rosenthal DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 Dennis S. Hyun HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 ____ BY MAIL __ As follows: I am “readily familiar” with the practice of Choi & Associates, Attorneys at Law for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that correspondence placed in the outgoing mail tray in my office for collection would be deposited in the United States Mail that same day in the ordinary course of business. ____ BY PERSONAL SERVICE I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. __X__ BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE I caused such document to be uploaded to Odyssey to be served on the offices of the addressees. ___x___ (State) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ______ (Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on June 21, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. ______________________________ Cina Kim