Opposition ObjectionsCal. Super. - 6th Dist.October 25, 2018 APPELLANT PLATINUM ROOFING, INC.’S OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CLAIMS - 1 - 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 Yosef Peretz (SBN 209288) yperetz@peretzlaw.com Shane Howarter (SBN 311970) showarter@peretzlaw.com PERETZ & ASSOCIATES 22 Battery Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.732.3777 Facsimile: 415.732.3791 Attorneys for Appellant PLATINUM ROOFING, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PLATINUM ROOFING, INC., Appellant, vs. MICHAEL STEPHENSON, Respondent. Case No. 18CV336768 APPELLANT PLATINUM ROOFING, INC.’S OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CLAIMS Pursuant to Murphy v. Kenneth Cole (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, Appellant PLATINUM ROOFING, INC. (“Appellant”) hereby submits this objection to Respondent MICHAEL STEPHENSON (“Respondent”)’s Notice of Additional Claims & Issues at De Novo Trial of Wage Claims (the “Notice”). See 40 Cal.4th at 1101. Respondent’s Notice, which was served on Appellant on April 23, 2019, attempts to unilaterally expand the scope of the already- scheduled de novo trial beyond the claims and issues determined by the Labor Commissioner. The brand-new claims and issues include Respondent’s request for penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs for alleged failure to provide pay stubs, payroll records, and personnel records, as well as five new claims for unpaid commissions. In support of the Notice, Respondent cites Murphy v. Kenneth Cole (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094. Murphy held that “whether an employee should be permitted to raise additional claims in the de novo proceeding is best left to the sound discretion of trial courts.” 40 Cal.4th at 1118 (emphasis added). Respondent is not entitled to unilaterally expand the scope of the de novo trial without the permission of this Court. Indeed, the parties in Murphy were required to submit Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/2/2019 8:26 AM Reviewed By: S. Crabtree Case #18CV336768 Envelope: 2834091 APPELLANT PLATINUM ROOFING, INC.’S OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CLAIMS - 2 - 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 additional briefing before the trial court decided to permit the additional claims. Id. at 1101. Respondent’s Notice provides no substantive basis or argument in support of his new claims. In exercising its discretion to permit Respondent’s new claims under Murphy, the Court should weigh various considerations, including whether the newly-asserted claims are sufficiently related, whether the interests of judicial economy will be served, and whether the employer will be prejudiced. Id. at 1118. Appellant would clearly be prejudiced if these brand-new claims and issues are heard at the currently-scheduled de novo trial in this matter. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed over seven months ago on October 25, 2018. [Declaration of Yosef Peretz (“Peretz Decl.”), ¶ 4.] Just two weeks ago, on April 16, 2019, the Court set the de novo trial for July 15, 2019, after Respondent pushed for an earlier trial date. [Peretz Decl., ¶ 5.] Then, less than one week after the trial is set, Respondent springs these last-minute claims and issues on Appellant. Respondent is aware that these new claims and issues were never adjudicated by the Labor Commissioner, and that Appellant has had no opportunity to conduct discovery on these allegations. Requiring Appellant to prepare for trial on all of these new claims and issues in little over two months would be unduly prejudicial. [Peretz Decl., ¶ 6.] On this basis alone, the Court should either deny Respondent’s attempt to add last-minute claims to the de novo trial, or postpone the trial to allow Appellant sufficient time to prepare its case. In addition, the interests of judicial economy would not be served by permitting Respondent to add additional claims. There is a regular civil action currently ongoing between these same parties in this Court, case number 18-cv-334657. [Peretz Decl., ¶ 7.] In the civil action, Respondent has recently filed a cross-complaint, and taken the position that issues related to his employment at Platinum Roofing, Inc. is pertinent to the resolution of that action. [Peretz Decl., ¶ 7.] Discovery there is currently ongoing, and no trial has been set. [Peretz Decl., ¶ 7.] Thus, in the interests of both judicial economy and prejudice to Appellant, Respondent’s new claims and issues should be adjudicated in the civil action, where the parties will have a sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare their case for trial on the merits of these newly- asserted claims. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that the Court deny Respondent’s attempt to assert additional claims and issues in this de novo trial, or alternatively, postpone the trial to permit Appellant sufficient time to prepare its case. APPELLANT PLATINUM ROOFING, INC.’S OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CLAIMS - 3 - 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 Dated: May 1, 2019 PERETZ & ASSOCIATES By: ______________________ Yosef Peretz Shane Howarter Attorneys for Appellant PLATINUM ROOFING, INC.
