Statement Case Management ConferenceCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 25, 20191 Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 3 (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile 4 William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131) 5 Polaris Law Group LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 6 Hollister, CA 95023 (831) 531-4214 7 (831) 634-0333 facsimile 8 Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) HYUN LEGAL, APC 9 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 10 (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile Edward W. Choi, Esq. SBN 211334 LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 381-1515 (213) 465-4885 facsimile Attorneys for Plaintiff (Counsel for Defendant on Next Page) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CL RA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALBERT RAMOS, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 19CV345120 [Assigned to the Hon. Brian C. Walsh, Dept. 1] JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: July 12, 2019 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept.: 1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 0MM .... US:76905639.2 06/26/19 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/1/2019 11:37 AM Reviewed By: System System Case #19CV345120 Envelope: 3074698 19CV345120 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 ADAM P. KOHSWEENEY (S.B. #229983) akohsweeney@omm.com KRISTIN M. MACDONNELL (S.B. #307124) kmacdonnell@omm.com O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-3823 Telephone: +1415984 8700 Facsimile: +1415 984 8701 Attorneys for Defendant American Airlines, Inc. - 2 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT OMM""US:76905639.2 06/26/19 1 Plaintiff, Albert Ramos, and Defendant, American Airlines, Inc. ("American" or 2 "Defendant"), by and through their counsel undersigned, submit this Joint Case Management 3 Conference Statement pursuant to this Court's March 25, 2019 order and accompanying Order 4 Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery. 5 1. A statement as to whether additional parties are likely to be added and a 6 proposed date by which all parties must be served. 7 Plaintiff does not currently intend to add any parties. Nevertheless, Plaintiff reserves the 8 right to amend to add any parties should further investigation and discovery uncover additional 9 responsible parties. 10 Defendant's Statement: 11 Defendant does not believe additional parties should be added. All parties have been 12 served. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Service lists identifying all primary and secondary counsel, firm names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and fax numbers for all counsel Plaintiff. Albert Ramos: Plaintiff is represented by the following attorneys: Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 9007 l (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile William L. Marder (State Bar No. 170131) Polaris Law Group LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 (831) 531-4214 (83 l) 634-0333 facsimile Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 9007 l (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile Edward W. Choi, Esq. SBN 211334 LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 0MM_US:76905639.2 06/26/19 - 3 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT l 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 2 (213) 381-1515 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (213) 465-4885 facsimile Defendant. American Airlines, Inc.: Adam KohSweeney, akohsweeney@omm.com, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Two Embarcadero Center, 281h Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-3823. Telephone: 415 984 8700. Facsimile: 415 984 8701. Kristin M. MacDonnell, kmacdonnell@omm.com, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Two Embarcadero Center, 281h Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-3823. Telephone: 415 984 8700. Facsimile: 415 984 8701. 3. A description of all discovery completed to date and any outstanding 13 discovery as of the date of the conference. 14 The Court stayed discovery in its March 25, 2019 Order and no discovery has taken place. 15 4. Applicability and enforceability of arbitration clauses, if any. 16 There are no arbitration clauses at issue. 17 5. A list of all related litigation pending in other courts, including Federal Court, 18 and a brief description of any such litigation, and a statement as to whether any additional 19 related litigation is anticipated 20 Plaintiff is not aware of any related cases. Defendant, however, identifies the following 21 potentially related cases: 22 1. Hasim A. Mohammed v. American Airlines, Inc., Superior Court of the State of 23 California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 19CV346743. Plaintiff purports to bring a 24 representative action pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. claiming that Defendant 25 failed to timely pay wages, and that Defendant violated other provisions of the California Labor 26 Code by, for example, failing to provide adequate meal periods and rest periods, failing to pay 27 premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, failing to provide accurate written wage 28 OMM_US:76905639.2 06/26/19 - 4 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 statements, and failing to pay final wages following separation of employment. 2 2. HasimA. Mohammed v. American Airlines, Inc., United States District Court for 3 the Northern District of California, Case No. 5: 19-01540-EJD. Plaintiff purports to bring a class 4 action lawsuit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated and alleges that Defendant failed 5 to timely pay wages, and that Defendant violated other provisions of the California Labor Code 6 by, for example, failing to provide adequate meal periods and rest periods, failing to pay premium 7 wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, failing to provide accurate written wage statements, 8 and failing to pay final wages following separation of employment. Plaintiff also alleges that 9 Defendant engaged in unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions 10 Code § 17200. 11 3. Marcelle Powers, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., Superior Court of the State of 12 California for the County of Alameda, Case No. RG 19003762. Plaintiff purports to bring a class 13 action lawsuit seeking unpaid wages on behalf of herself and other similarly situated California- 14 based flight attendants alleging that Defendant failed to timely pay wages in violation of the 15 California Labor Code. In addition, plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the California Labor 16 Code by failing to pay wages for all time worked at minimum wage; failing to adequately 17 indemnify employees for employment-related losses/expenditures; failing to provide complete 18 and accurate wages statements; and, failing to time pay all earned wages and the final paycheck at 19 time of separation; and, unfair business practices, in violation of Business and Professions Code 20 Section 17200, et seq. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. A description of factual and legal issues Plaintiffs description of factual and legal issues: This is a representative action pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (the "PAGA"), Labor Code§ 2698, et seq. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated Labor Code§ 204 arising from Defendants' failure to pay wages to employees in a timely manner. In this regard, Labor Code § 204 provides that: [A]ll wages ... earned by any person in any employment are due and payable twice during each calendar month, on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays. Labor performed between the 1st and 15th days, - 5 - OMM_US:76905639.2 06/26/19 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 inclusive, of any calendar month shall be paid for between the 16th and the 26th day of the month during which the labor was performed, and labor performed between the 16th and the last day, inclusive, of any calendar month, shall be paid for between the 1st and 10th day of the following month. The requirements of this section shall be deemed satisfied by the payment of wages for weekly, biweekly, or semimonthly payroll if the wages are paid not more than seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period. Cal. Lab. Code§ 204. More specifically, while Defendants paid wages its employees on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, including as to Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees, their wages would not be paid until more than 10 days after the end of each pay period. Therefore, Defendants violated Labor Code § 204 by failing to pay wages within the time requirements as set forth in § 204. Plaintiff believes that this case can be easily adjudicated via cross-motions for summary judgment, as Defendant's pay period and pay dates are undisputed and can be easily verified through Defendant's own payroll records. Thus, this case is perfectly suited for a representative trial and does not present any manageability issues as contended by Defendant. As for Defendant's contentions that collective bargaining agreements may apply to contain their own timing requirements as to the payment of wages, Plaintiff disputes this contention and Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery to rebut this argument. 20 Defendant's description of factual and legal issues: 21 As defendant understands plaintiffs complaint, he has filed a PAGA action alleging that 22 defendant violated California Labor Code § 204 by not paying plaintiff his wages until more than 23 10 days after the end of each pay period. Defendant denies each and every allegation in 24 plaintiffs complaint and denies that plaintiff can properly maintain his action on a representative 25 basis. 26 Plaintiff was employed as a material logistics specialist and the terms and conditions of 27 his employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement entered into between 28 OMM_US:76905639.2 06/26/19 - 6 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT American Airlines, Inc. and the Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO ("TWU"). 2 During the relevant period, American paid TWU material logistics specialists on the last day of 3 each pay period. 4 Defendant has identified the following issues: 5 Whether plaintiff was paid in accordance with California Labor Code § 204; 6 Whether plaintiff provided sufficient notice of his factual allegations and/or theories of 7 liability to allow the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to assess the alleged violations, 8 and/or allow Defendant to determine what policies or practices were being complained of; 9 Whether plaintiff is an aggrieved employee; 10 Whether plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit as alleged; 11 Whether and/or to what extent this case can be properly maintained on a representative 12 basis on behalf of other allegedly "aggrieved employees"; 13 Whether the claim is unmanageable such that a PAGA claim should not proceed; 14 Whether the claim requires individualized assessments; 15 Whether the applicable collective bargaining agreements provide for different pay 16 arrangements than that set forth in the California Labor Code; 17 Whether the laws of the State of California apply extraterritorially; 18 Whether the claims are preempted by the RLA, ADA, and/or the dormant commerce 19 clause; and, 20 If this Court allows the PAGA claim to proceed, whether and/or to what extent civil 21 penalties under PAGA are appropriate. 22 7. The parties' tentative views on an ADR mechanism and how such mechanism 23 might be integrated into the course of the litigation 24 Plaintiffs Statement: 25 Given Defendant's statement that it is not inclined to proceed to ADR, Plaintiff will 26 proceed to litigation. 27 Defendant's Statement: 28 0MM_US:76905639.2 06/26/19 -7- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Defendant does not believe ADR is appropriate at this stage in the litigation. However, 2 defendant believes that the parties should consider ADR as discovery progresses. 3 8. Whether discovery should be conducted in phases or limited; and if so, the 4 order of phasing or types of limitations of discovery. If this is a class action lawsuit, the 5 parties should address the issue of limited merits discovery in advance of class certification 6 motions. 7 Plaintiffs Statement: 8 Defendant raises irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do with this case, such as 9 "different schedules" and "policies." There is only one issue that needs to be decided; namely, lO does Defendant timely pay its employees in compliance with Labor Code § 204. There is nothing 11 individualized about this inquiry. All that the Parties must do is obtain Defendant's pay period 12 dates and pay dates. If the pay dates are outside the time limit set forth in Section 204, Defendant 13 loses. This case is that simple. 14 And, while Defendant asserts that Plaintiff cannot seek to represent all employees who 15 work or live in California, the California Supreme Court has made clear in Sullivan v. Oracle 16 Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191, 1198 (2011), the California Labor Code applies equally to non-residents 17 who perform work in California, as well as residents. Whether such work is performed in 18 California can be easily verified by Defendant's payroll records. 19 Further, as this Court knows, Defendant's "typicality" argument has no place in PAGA 20 actions. As an initial matter, PAGA actions are not subject to class action and certification 21 requirements. Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009). Thus, there is no requirement that 22 Plaintiff be subject to the exact same practices and policies of his coworkers. Moreover, pursuant to 23 Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 745, 751 (2018), Plaintiff is 24 entitled to represent all aggrieved employees so long as he has suffered a violation of the Labor 25 Code, even if he himself was not subjected to the practice at issue. Thus, Defendant's arguments 26 are a non-starter. 27 As for the related cases, Plaintiff's counsel needs to see the Complaints at issue to see if 28 OMM".US:76905639.2 06/26/19 -8- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 the other plaintiffs actually assert a claim for violation of Labor Code § 204, as opposed to a 2 claim for derivative waiting time penalties under Labor Code§§ 201-203. 3 4 Defendant's Statement: 5 Defendant understands that Plaintiff defines "aggrieved employees" in this matter to mean 6 every single employee of Defendant that either lives in or works in the State of California. 7 Defendant contends that this is manifestly improper for a number of reasons, inter alia, the fact 8 that virtually all workgroups at Defendant are unionized, and subject to different schedules, 9 policies, practices, and agreements regarding the time of wage payments and pay periods. 10 Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of individuals who were paid on different 11 schedules pursuant to different policies, procedures, and agreements that he was never subject to. 12 This is further complicated by the fact that there is already other litigation pending for certain 13 workgroups, per Section 5, supra. Defendant believes that this issue will need to resolved before 14 meaningful discovery can be conducted. 15 9. A summary of any orders from prior case management conferences and the 16 progress of the parties' compliance with said orders 17 This is the initial case management conference and there are no orders from prior case 18 management conferences. 19 10. Significant procedural and practical problems which may likely be 20 encountered 21 22 The Parties are not aware of significant procedural or practical problems which may be 23 encountered. 24 11. Suggestions for efficient management, including a proposed timeline of key 25 events 26 Plaintiff's Statement: 27 Per the Parties' counsel's meet and confer, Plaintiff's counsel stated that he would be 28 0MM_US:76905639.2 06/26/19 - 9 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT amenable to a protective order. Plaintiff is fine with another status conference 90 days ou.!.,_ 2 Defendant's Statement: 3 Defendant believes that the parties would benefit from a protective order, and suggests 4 that a further Case Management Conference be set approximately ninety (90) days out to discuss 5 case status. 6 12. Any special consideration to assist the Court in determining an effective case 7 management plan. 8 The parties are not currently aware of any special consideration that would assist the 9 Court in determining an effective case management plan. 10 Dated: July 1, 2019 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Dated: Julyif,2019 OMM_US:76905639.2 06/26/19 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. By: LarryW. Lee Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees ADAM P. KOHSWEENEY KRISTIN M. MACDONNELL O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP ~ By: ... AdaffiiSWeeileY Attorneys for Defendant American Airlines, Inc. - 10 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 2 3 PROOF OF SERVICE (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1013a, 2015.5) 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ] ]ss. 5 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90071. On July 1, 2019, I served the following document(s) described as: JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on the interested parties in this action as follows: Adam P. Kohsweeney Kristin M. Macdonnell O'Melveny & Myers LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28111 Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Attorneys for Defendant American Airlines, Inc. X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order I caused the above- entitled document(s) to be served through the Odyssey eFileCA E-Filing System at the website www.california.tylerhost.net, addressed to all parties appearing on the electronic service list for the above-entitled case. The service transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the filing receipt/confirmation will be filed, deposited, or maintained with the original document(s) in this office. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the abGve is true and correct. Executed on July 1, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. PROOF OF SERVICE