Conference Case ManagementCal. Super. - 6th Dist.September 26, 201710 12 13 14 15 16 17 AEGIS LAWFIRM, PC KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672 SAMUELA. WONG, State Bar No. 217104 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626 SIMON KWAK,State Bar No. 297362 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone:(949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Attorneys for PlaintiffBenjamin F. Gonzales, individually, and on behalf ofall others similarly situated. LITTLERMENDELSON> P.C. ARTHURM. EIDELHOCH, State Bar No. 168096 MICHAELF. MCCABE, State Bar No. 111151 ALEXANDRAH. HEMENWAY,State Bar No. 297888 333 Bush Stteet, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: aeidelhochlittler. corn mmcc abclittler.corn jstocktonlittler.corn Attorneys for Defendant Flagship Facility Services, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTACLARA 18 19 20 23 24 25 BENJAMIN F, GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf ofall other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, vs. FLAGSHIP FACILITYSERVICES, lNC.; and DOES I through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 17CV316313 Assigned for allpurposes to: Hon. Brian C. g'a!sit Dept. J JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: November 2, 2018 Time: 10:00 a,m. Dept.: 1 27 28 FIRMWIDa:159225641.1 999991 N60 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENTCONFERENCE STATEMENT Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/26/2018 4:01 PM Reviewed By: System System Case #17CV316313 Envelope: 2107664 17CV316313 Santa Clara - Civil System System Plainti6'Benjamin F. Gonzales ("Plaintiff') and Defendant Flagship Facility Services, Inc. ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties" ) submit this Joint Statement in advance of the Case Management Conference scheduled for November 2, 2018, as follows: 1. STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADDITIONOF PARTIES At this time, the Parties do not intend to add any additional parties. 2. SERVICE LIST 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff is represented by Kashif Haque, Samuel A. Wong, Jessica L. Campbell, and Simon Kwak ofAegis Law Firm, PC, 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 9261g, telephone: (949) 379-6250; fax: (949) 379-6251; email: swongaegislawfirm.corn, khaquewaegislawfirm.corn, jcampbellaegislawfirm.corn, and skwakaegislawfirm.corn. Defendant is represented by Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Michael F. McCabe, and Alexandra Hcmenway of Littler Mendelson, P.C., 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104; telephone: (415) 433-1940; fax: (415) 743-6653; email; aeidelhcch@littler,corn, mmccabe@littler.corn; and ahemenway@littler.corn. 3. STATUS OF DISCOVERY a. PlaintifFs Position: On May 10, 2018, Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories snd Request for Production of Documents seeking class discovery. Generally, Defendant objected to producing information and documents related to class certification, including, but not limited to contact information of putative class members and their time and pay records. Defendant provided Plalntidf's personnel records, but Defendant has not yet produced documents it agreed to produce, such as Plaintifi's time records. Before this Court stayed discovery, Plaintiff provided a draft of a Belaire notice providing putative class members the opportunity to opt out of disclosure of their contact information. Plaintifffurther provided meet and confer letters in an effort to informally resolve the disputes, including a request for an agreement to an informal discovery conference. Plaintiff is entitled to seek evidence related to class certification requirements, such as FIRMWIDE:159225641.1 999991.0260 J%%A@k~~SOMR588~1j)NNT commonality, typicality, and adequacy, as well as the wage snd hour issues in this matter "before the class is certified, not atter." Bartold v. Glendale Federal Bank, 81 Cal. App. 4th 816, 836 (2000). Plaintiff is entitled to sll of the putative class members'ontact information but is willing to meet and confer regarding a sampling of their redacted time and pay records with unique employee identifiers, Plshitiifrequests that the Court liftthe discovery stay at the CMC. b. IJefendants'osition: 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Defendant has met and conferred with Plaintiff's counsel regarding the scope of discovery served prior to the Court's stay. Defendant believes discovery should be conducted in phases, focused initiallyon class certification issues. Based on the two pending related cases identified below (the Soriano case has been settled pending preliminary approval {which is set for hearing on November 2, 2018), discovery needs to be coordinated to avoid Defendant needing to respond to multiple sets of overlapping discovery. Defendant's counsel has informed PlaintifFs counsel that it intends to demurrer to PlaintifFs Second-Amended complaint on the ground that it fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute viable causes of action, instead consisting of legal conclusions. Until the pleadings are settled, Defendant contends it is premature to conduct discovery. 4. ARBITRATIONAGREEMENTS a. Plaintifps Position: Plaintiff is not aware of an arbitration agreement applicable to his employment with Defendant, Defendant previously provided an arbitration agreement, which Defendant later confirmed was not signed by Plaintiff. b. Defendants'osition: 25 Many members of the putative class have agreed to resolve their claims through individual arbitration, although it has been unable to locate a written arbitration agreement signed by Plaintiff. 28 FIRMWEK:159225641.1 999991.0260 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENTCONFERENCE STATEMENT 2 5. RELATED LITIGATION 3 The Parties identify the followingpending litigation: 4 a. Soriano v. Flagship Facility Services, Inc. 5 Case No.: 17CV316438 Court: Santa Clara Superior Court -Dept. 1 Filed: September 28, 2017 Status: Pending preliminary approval of class action settlement. b. Rivera v. Flagship Facility Services, Inc. 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 1& 19 20 Case No.: 18CV329704 Court: Santa Clara Superior Court -Dept. 1 Filed: June 8, 2018 Status: Pending. c. Ceron De Orozco v. Flagship Facility Services, Inc. Case No.: 37-2018-00040481-CU-OE-CTL (subsetluently removed) Court: Originally tiled in San Diego Superior Court, Dept. C-69 Filed: August 13, 2018 Status: Removed to U.S. District Court, Southern District ofCalifornia. LEGALANDFACTUALISSUES a. PlaintitPs Position: Plaintiffbegan working for Defendant as a non-exempt facilities technician on or around 21 June 8, 2011. Plaintiff fded this class action lawsuit against Defendant for failing to pay all 22 wages, including minimum and overlime wages for off-the-clock work for working through 23 breaks and for being placed on on-call duty, failing to provide meal and rest breaks or 24 premimns in lieu thereof, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to 25 pay all wages upon the separation of employment. Additionally, Plaintiffseeks to recover civil 26 penalties pursuant to PACrA. 27 Defendants'osition: 28 PlaintifF s Second-Amended Complaint fails to set forth any information alleging that 91RMWIDE:159225641.1 999991.0260 -3- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENTCONFERENCE STA~ 2 Plaintif'f has standing to assert any of the claims asserted in it. Instead, Plaintiff has 3 conclusory fashion alleged that he snd the putative class members have been injured based on 4 the asserted causes of action. Other than identifying Defendant in the caption, the Second- Amended Complaint's generic claims could be asserted against any employer based in 6 California. For example, Plaintiff seeks waiting time penalties on behalf of himself and the 7 putative class, yet Defendant's records show PlaintifF remains employed, albeit on a leave of g absence. 9 7. ALTERNATIVEDISPUTE RESOLUTION 10 a PlaintiIPs Position: 11 Plaintiff is open to early private mediation as long as Defendant is willing to produce 12 adequate information for Plaintiffto evaluate the value of the case. 13 Defendants'osition: 14 Defendant is willingto engage in mediation following the pleadings being at issue and limited discovery regarding class issues. 16 g. PHASING OF CLASS DISCOVERY 17 a. PlaintidPs Position: 18 Plaintiff does not believe formal phasing of discovery or production is necessary as it 19 tends to create, rather than resolve, discovery disputes regarding what constitutes "merits" 20 discovery. "California law has long made clear that to require a party to supply proof of any 21 claims or defenses as a condition ofdiscovery in support of those claims or defenses is to place the cart before the horse." Williams v. Superior Court (Marsha!is ofCA, LLC), 3 Cal. 5th 531, 551 (2017). /// /// /// /// 2g /// FIRMWIDE:159225641,1 999991.D260 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENTCONFERENCE STATEMENT 2 b. Defendants'osition: 3 As set forth above, Defendant believes discovery should be conducted in phases once 4 the pleadings have been finalized and coordinated with the pending related cases. 5 Dated: October 26, 2018 6 8~on wak Attorneys for PlaintifFBenjamin F. Gonzales 10 Dated: October 26, 2018 LITTLERMENDELSON, PC 13 15 By: isi Michael F. McCabe Arthur M. Eidelhoch Michael F. McCabe Alexandra H. Hemenway Attorneys for Defendant Flagship FaciTity Services, Inc. 16 17 18 I hereby certify that the content ofthis document is acceptable to Mr, Michael F. McCabe, counsel for Defendant Flagship Facility Services, Inc., snd that I have obtained Mr. McCabe's authorization to ainx bis electronic signature to this document. 19 Dated: October 26, 2018 21 AEGIS LAWFIRM, PC 23 24 25 S~owsk I Attorneys for PlaintiffBenjamin F. Gonzales 26 27 28 FIRMWH)S:159225641. i 999991.0260 -5- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENTCONFERENCE STATEMDV CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; am employed with Aegis Law Firm PC and my business address is 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618. On October 26, 2018, I served the foregoing document entitled: ~ JOINT CASE MANAGEMENTCONFERENCE STATEMENT on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by placing the original H a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Michael McCabe Alexandra H. Hemenway LITTLERMENDELSON, PC 333 Bush Sheet, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Attorneys for Defendant: Flagship Facility Services, Inc. (BY MAIL)I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fullyprepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing this affidavit. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. tj 1013(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Aegis Law Firm PC for collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery, and I caused such document(s) described herein to be deposited for delivery to a facility regularly maintained Federal Express for overnight delivery. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. f 1013(c); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused said document(s) to be served via electronic transmission via the above listed email addresses on the date below. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. $ 1010.6(6); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(2)(E); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(3).) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered the foregoing document by hand delivery to the addressed named above. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. $ 1011; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(2)(A).) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is hue and correct. Executed on October 26, 2018, at Irvine, California, Andr rocco 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE