Conference Case ManagementCal. Super. - 6th Dist.September 26, 201710 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17CV31631 3 Santa Clara - Civil AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672 SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217 1 04 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626 FAWN F. BEKAM, State Bar No. 3073 12 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Attorneys for Plaintiff Benjamin F. Gonzales, individually, and on behalf 0f all others similarly situated. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. MICHAEL F. MCCABE, State Bar N0. 1 1 1 151 KRISTIN E. HUTCHINS, State Bar No. 184429 JULIE A. STOCKTON, State Bar N0. 286944 EMILY A. MERTES, State Bar No. 296743 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (4 1 5) 433 - 1 940 Facsimile: (3 10) 20 1 -52 1 9 Attorneys for Defendant Flagship Facility Services, Inc. System Sy Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/31/2020 1:06 PM Reviewed By: System System Case #1 7CV31 631 3 Envelope: 4693367 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BENJAMIN F. GONZALEZ, individually Case No. 17CV3 163 1 3 and on behalf 0f all other aggrieved employees, Assignedfor allpurposes t0: Plaintiff, Dept. 1 VS. FLAGSHIP FACILITY SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. DePt-i 1 4844-5491-1429.1 063836.1054 Hon. Brian C. Walsh UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: August 7, 2020 Time: 10:00 am. stem JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Benjamin F. Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Flagship Facility Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) submit this Updated Joint Case Management Statement in advance 0f the Case Management Conference scheduled for August 7, 2020, as follows: The parties have scheduled a mediation before Jeffrey A. Ross, Esq. of Oakland, California 0n November 11, 2020. The parties respectfully ask the Court t0 consider continuing the present Case Management Conference t0 a date following the mediation. 1. RELATED LITIGATION The Parties identify the following pending litigation: a. approved in the Ceron de Orozco case. C. 4844-5491-1429.1 063836.1054 I. CASE UPDATE II. CASE INFORMATION Soriano v. Flagship Facility Services, Inc. Case No.2 17CV3 16438 w: Santa Clara Superior Court - Dept. 1 m: September 28, 2017 m: Final judgment on the class settlement was entered January 15, 2020. Rivera v. Flagship Facility Services, Inc. Case No.: 18CV329704 w: Santa Clara Superior Court - Dept. 1 m: June 8, 2018 Status: Pending but stayed subj ect t0 finality of the class settlement preliminarily Ceron De Orozco v. Flagship Facility Services, Inc. Case No.: 37-2018-00040481-CU-OE-CTL (subsequently removed) w: Originally filed in San Diego Superior Court, Dept. C-69 m: August 13, 2018 m: Preliminary Approval was granted 0n July 22, 2020. A Final Approval Hearing is set for December 17, 2020 before the Honorable Janis Sammartino of -1- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the United States District Court for the Southern District 0f California. 2. PARTIES’ POSITIONS REGARDING RELATED CASES a. Plaintiff’s Position: The settlement in Soriano involves narrow claims concerning Defendant’s alleged failure to pay wages for the time that non-exempt employees spent in on-boarding and training sessions and the alleged failure to pay weekly wages. The settlement in Ceron de Orozco and the putative class alleged in Rivera concern non-exempt janitorial employees, Which is a subset of the putative class of all non-exempt employees in Plaintiff Gonzales’ action. In light of the pending settlements, Plaintiff narrowed the focus of discovery to Defendant’s Facilities and Culinary employees, but without prejudice or waiver 0f the right to seek discovery as t0 all non-exempt employees. b. Defendant’s Position: The Rivera and Ceron de Orozco lawsuits both involve non-exempt janitorial employees, a subset 0f the putative class in Gonzales (with the exception 0f slight variances in Class periods, depending on the filing date of each action). Defendant contends that discovery in the Gonzales matter should not include janitorial employees, as these employees’ claims are being settled through the Ceron de Orozco settlement. 3. PLEADINGS a. Plaintiff’s Position: The Second Amended Complaint is the operative complaint and seeks class-wide relief against Defendant for failing to pay all wages, including minimum and overtime wages for off- the-clock work for working through breaks and for being placed 0n on-call duty, failing to provide meal and rest breaks or premiums in lieu thereof, failing t0 provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failing t0 pay all wages upon the separation of employment. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to recover civil penalties pursuant to PAGA. Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant’s position that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the Sixth Cause 0f Action for failure t0 pay all wages due upon separation 0f employment. b. Defendant’s Position: -2- 4844-5491-14291 0638361054 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Gonzales was still employed at the time this action was filed, and did not separate from his employment until after this lawsuit had commenced. Labor Code section 203 permits waiting time penalties for up to 30 days, 0r until a lawsuit 0n the unpaid wages is filed. Because this lawsuit for unpaid wages was filed While Mr. Gonzales was still employed, he is not entitled t0 any waiting time penalties. If this case does not settle, Defendant will move for summary adjudication at an appropriate time regarding this issue. 4. STATUS OF DISCOVERY / STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Discovery was stayed in this action since the transfer 0f the action t0 the Complex Civil Litigation Department on September 26, 2018. The discovery stay was lifted 0n March 15, 2019. Plaintiff propounded an initial set 0f written discovery as t0 all 0f Defendant’s non- exempt employees before the transfer 0f this action t0 this Department. After the Court lifted the discovery stay and in light 0f the Court’s comments at the last Case Management Conference urging the parties t0 seek an efficient method 0f litigating the related cases, the Parties met and conferred 0n narrowing the scope 0f discovery t0 the Culinary and Facilities departments. The Parties agreed to a 15% sampling 0f employees’ contact information, time and pay records for the Culinary and Facilities departments, Which Defendant has provided. 4. The Parties Will not be conducting additional formal discovery prior t0 the November mediation. 5. PHASING OF CLASS DISCOVERY a. Plaintiff’s Position: When lifting the stay on discovery, the Court specifically indicated that the stay is lifted for all purposes, without phasing as t0 class certification and liability issues because despite being the first-filed case, this action was stayed while significant discovery and progress had been made in the subsequently-filed cases. b. Defendant’s Position: Although the Court has lifted the discovery stay, Defendant believes that discovery should be prioritized focusing on whether the putative class can be certified. The sampling -3- 4844-5491-14291 0638361054 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant provided is directed at this obj ective. 6. ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS The Parties are not aware of an arbitration agreement applicable t0 Plaintiff‘s employment with Defendant. However, Defendant represents that almost all putative class members have signed arbitration agreements containing class action waivers. 7. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION As noted above in the “Update” section, the Parties have engaged mediator Jeffrey A. Ross and Will be mediating this dispute 0n November 11, 2020. Dated: July 3 1, 2020 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 745- . Fawn F. Bekam Attorneys for Plaintiff Benjamin F. Gonzales Dated: July 3 1 , 2020 LITTLER MENDELSON, PC By: m £7W Michael F. McCabe Kristin E. Hutchins Julie A. Stockton Emily A. Mertes Attorneys for Defendant Flagship Facility Services, Inc. -4- 4844-5491-1429.1 063 836.1054 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT \OOOQONUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-I-Ht-I-Ht-I-Ht- OONQM$UJNHOKOOOQONMJ>WNHO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 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 July 31, 2020, I served the foregoing document entitled: o UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by placing D the original E a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Michael McCabe Kristin E. Hutchins Julie A. Stockton Emily A. Mertes LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 mmccabe@littler.com khutchins littler.com jstockton@littler.com emertes@littler.com Attomeysfor Defendant: Flagship Facility Services, Inc. D (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 fully prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing this affidavit. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(0).) D (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 t0 be deposited for delivery t0 a facility regularly maintained Federal Express for overnight delivery. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(0); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(0).) g (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).) D (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered the foregoing document by hand delivery to the addressed named above. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 101 1; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(2)(A).) /// /// /// CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE \OOOQONUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-I-Ht-I-Ht-I-Ht- OONQM$UJNHOKOOOQONMJ>WNHO I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ' Executed 0n July 31, 2020, at Irvine, California. Andrea Drocco -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE