Statement Case Management Conference

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 1, 2019

\OOOQQUl-bUJNr- NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-KHHr-tr-t OOQQUl-bUJNt-‘OKDOOQQUl-bUJNP-‘O 1QCV3471 73 Santa Clara - Larry W. Lee (State Bar N0. 228175) DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile lwlee@diversitylaw.com Civil System Syst Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 9/24/2020 5:30 PM Reviewed By: System System Case #1 9CV3471 73 Envelope: 4993217 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lillian Audycki and Joseph Ferlatte and the Class *ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS ON PAGE 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA LILLIAN AUDYCKI, individually and 0n behalf 0f all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS. STANFORD HEALTH CARE, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. TAWNYA COOGAN 0n behalf 0f herself, all others similarly situated, and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, VS. STANFORD HEALTH CARE, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. 1 Case N0. 19CV347173 [Consolidated With Case Nos. 19CV360010 and 20CV365879] JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: October 7, 2020 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept: 6 Complaint Filed: May 1, 2019 Case N0. 19CV3600 1 0 Complaint Filed: December 12, 2019 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT (D \OOOQQUl-bUJNr- NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-KHHr-tr-t OOQQUl-bUJNt-‘OKDOOQQUl-bUJNP-‘O JOSEPH FERLATTE, as an individual and 0n behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, VS. STANFORD HEALTH CARE, a California nonprofit corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case N0. 20CV365879 Complaint Filed: March 30, 2020 2 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT KOOOQQUl-hUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNHHr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-K OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQONUIAUJNHO ADDITIONAL COUNSEL Edward W. Choi, Esq. SBN 21 1334 William L. Marder, Esq. (SSN 17013 1) LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES POLARIS LAW GROUP 515 S. Figueroa St, Suite 1250 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (213) 381-1515 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (213) 465-4885 Facsimile; (83 1) 634-0333 Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com bj]1@p01arislawgroup,com Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240) HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 488-6555 (213) 488-6554 facsimile dhvun@hvunlegal.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lillian Audycki and Joseph Ferlatte and the Class ERIC A. GROVER (SBN 136080) eagrover@kellergr0ver.com ROBERT W. SPENCER (SBN 23 8491) rspencer@kellergr0ver.com KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 Attorneysfor Plaintiff TAWNYA COOGAN AND THE CLASS FLETCHER C. ALFORD (SBN 1523 14) MICHAEL D. BRUNO (SBN 166805) SETH WEISBURST (SBN 259323) VIOLAINE C. BRUNET (SBN 305609) GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 falford@grsm.com mbrun0@grsm.com sweisburst@grsm.com Vbrunet@grsm.com Attorneys for Defendant Stanford Health Care 3 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT KOOOQQUl-bUJNu-A NNNNNNNNNHHr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-K OONO‘xUl-waHOKOOOQQUI-hUJNi-‘O Plaintiffs LILLIAN AUDYCKI (“Audycki”), TAWNYA COOGAN (“Coogan”) and JOSEPH FERLATTE (“Ferlatte”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant STANFORD HEALTH CARE (“Defendant”) (Plaintiffs and Defendant are collectively referred t0 as the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel 0f record, submit this Joint Case Management Conference Statement in connection with the Case Management Conference set for October 7, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6 0f the above-referenced court. Pursuant to the Court’s order at the prior case management conference, the Parties submitted a stipulation for leave t0 amend to file the Consolidated Class Action and Representative Complaint, which was filed and approved by the Court 0n August 27, 2020. Discovery Plaintiffs’ position: As previously set forth in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement, Plaintiffs’ counsel has been meeting and conferring with Defendant’s counsel regarding Defendant’s discovery responses. Now that the cases have been consolidated, Plaintiffs’ counsel wishes t0 resume those discussions and obtain proper discovery responses and documents. Plaintiffs’ counsel will also be propounding additional discovery as to the consolidated claims. Defendant’s position: Defendant is prepared to resume any necessary discussions regarding discovery. Defendant notes that Plaintiffs did not serve any pre-consolidation discovery in the Coogan 0r Ferlatte matters. Consolidated Complaint Plaintiffs’ position: The Parties have also been meeting and conferring as t0 the statutes of limitations used in the Consolidated Complaint. For purposes 0f the applicable statutes of limitations, Plaintiffs used the filing date 0f Audycki’s Complaint, or May 5, 2019. Plaintiffs contend that the relation back doctrine applies, such that all claims should relate back t0 the class periods as set forth in Audycki’s Complaint. Goldman v. Wilsey Foods, Ina, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1085, 1095 (1989). Defendant’s position: After meeting and conferring With Plaintiffs, Defendants will file a motion t0 strike the 4 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT KOOOQQUl-bUJNu-A NNNNNNNNNHHr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-K OONO‘xUl-waHOKOOOQQUI-hUJNi-‘O improper putative class periods on September 29 in response to the consolidated complaint. Before stipulating with Plaintiffs regarding the filing 0f the Consolidated Complaint, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that the complaint defined the time periods for the putative class periods incorrectly. To be clear, Defendant is not arguing that Plaintiffs are barred from bringing these claims-rather, they are barred from applying the filing date of the initial complaint t0 the putative class periods or alleged damages periods for the different facts, injuries, and claims that were first raised in the two later-filed cases. On August 28, 2020, Defendant sent Plaintiffs a detailed letter explaining Why the class periods were defined incorrectly, With supporting legal authority, asking Plaintiffs t0 voluntarily amend the consolidated complaint so that we could avoid wasting the Court’s and the parties” time and resources with motion practice on this straightforward issue. Plaintiffs refused. It now appears clear that Defendant will need to seek relief from the Court as to this issue in its response t0 the Consolidated Complaint. For the first time, when sending their draft joint statement, Plaintiffs have confirmed that they seek t0 apply the relation back doctrine in order t0 extend four class periods first alleged in the Coogan and Ferlatte complaints, so that they would begin to accrue based 0n the filing of the Audycki complaint. However, as explained in Defendant’s letter to Plaintiffs and during the parties’ meet and confer call, the relation back doctrine is based 0n the amendment 0f a single complaint, and not 0n consolidation. Such an outcome would obviously be prejudicial and unfair to Defendant, and there is no California authority supporting the application of the relation back doctrine proposed by Plaintiffs. Consolidation is not a means to extend the statute of limitation on claims that d0 not involve the same injury 0r the same alleged wrongful conduct. See, e.g., Hoffman V. Blattner Energy, Ina, 315 F.R.D. 324, 334, 335 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2016) (holding that there is n0 authority that stands for the proposition that the relation back doctrine allows plaintiffs in a timely-filed lawsuit to expand the applicable damages period by “piggybacking” off another previously-filed lawsuit). In Hoflman, the plaintiff argued that the doctrine of equitable tolling extended the statute of limitations relevant t0 his putative class action t0 coincide With the damages period applicable to a previously filed class action. The Court held: The practical effect of following Hoffman's position is that any time there are successive putative class actions filed anywhere in the state or country, no matter how long ago, the parties in the later filed action would be able to piggyback 0n the filing date of the earliest 5 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT KOOOQQUl-bUJNu-A NNNNNNNNNHHr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-K OONO‘xUl-waHOKOOOQQUI-hUJNi-‘O action-even if no class certification motion was ever filed 0r ruled upon-for the purpose 0f expanding the damages period. The Court is aware 0f n0 case authority supporting this proposmon. 1d. Further, even if the relation back doctrine could potentially apply t0 the consolidation 0f complaints (it does not), the doctrine only allows amendments if the amendments “rest[] 0n the same facts as the original complaint and referI] t0 the same accident and same injuries as the original complaint.” Goldman v. Wilsey Foods, Inc. (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 1085, 1094 (cited by Plaintiffs above); see also Barrington v. AH. Robins C0. (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 146, 151; Norgart v. Upjohn C0. (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 383, 408-409. The first-filed case, Audycki, was based on the alleged fact and injury that certain non-exempt SHC employees-those who were paid shift differential wages-were provided wage statements that purportedly did not identify the correct total hours worked, based on “redundantly 1ist[ing]” hours worked for shift differentials “in the total hours worked section.” Consolidated Complaint 11 30. The second case, Coogan, was based 0n the allegations that a different set of employees--“non-exempt non-union California employees Who worked shifts ofmore than 5 hours [0r more than 3.5 hours for rest periods]” were not provided off-duty meal and rest periods. Id. 1N 17-18. Coogan also alleged that yet another set of employees-those “Who were required to use their personal cell phones and/or cellular phone service While working”-Were not properly reimbursed for charges for using their cell phones. Id. These are not at all the “same facts” or “same injuries” as those in the Audycki case. The third-filed case, Ferlatte, involves a different group of employees-those “Who were paid non-discretionary incentive wages”-and alleges that they were not “pa[id] all wages owed, including sick pay at the correct, higher regular rate 0f pay.” Consolidated Complaint 1] 3. Again, these are different facts, and different injuries. Even if relation back could apply to consolidation, then, these claims could not relate back based 0n black-letter law. The only substantive response from Plaintiffs t0 date is t0 point to Goldman, 216 Cal. App. 3d at 1095, in support of their position that the consolidated cases should relate back t0 the filing date of the Audycki case. Goldman does not involve consolidation in any way. Rather, it illustrates a traditional application of the relation back doctrine-When plaintiff sought t0 amend his (non- 6 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT KOOOQQUl-bUJNu-A NNNNNNNNNHHr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-tr-K OONO‘xUl-waHOKOOOQQUI-hUJNi-‘O consolidated, single) complaint, the Court had to analyze Whether the later claim was based 0n the same set 0f facts and the same injury. Goldman involved discrimination claims and a complaint that later added claims based 0n that same alleged discrimination. Plaintiffs have not identified any authority t0 support the application of the relation back doctrine across consolidated complaints, nor could they, especially when the later-filed claims are not based 0n the same facts and injury as the earliest-filed complaint. For these reasons and others, Defendant Will move t0 strike the four class periods in Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint that improperly seek t0 take advantage 0f this inapplicable doctrine. m Plaintiffs’ position: Further, the Parties have met and conferred regarding mediation and while Plaintiff is amenable t0 private mediation, Defendant is not. Therefore, the Parties Will proceed to class certification. To this end, Plaintiffs will be serving consolidated discovery. Given the Parties’ prior working relationship, Plaintiffs anticipate further discovery issues and, thus, request that the Court set a filrther status conference re class certification in 120 days. Defendant’s position: Defendant is open t0 considering mediation at the appropriate time. However, Where Plaintiffs have not yet correctly pleaded their class periods, discovery has barely begun, and Defendant has no basis to date to believe that Plaintiffs would succeed in certifying the proposed classes, it would be premature t0 mediate at this time. Dated: September 24, 2020 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. By: Larry W. Lee Attorneys for Plaintiffs Audycki and Ferlatte and the Class 7 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT KOOOQQUIAUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNHHr-tr-tr-tr-tv-tt-tr-tr-K OOQONUI-PUJNHOKOOOQQM-PWNHO Dated: September 24, 2020 KELLER GROVER LLP By; (m fl. gwm /LWL Eric A. Grover V Robert Spencer Attorneys for Plaintiff Coogan and the Class Dated: September 24, 2020 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLPMW By: Fletcher C. Alford Michael D. Bruno Seth Weisburst Attorneys for Defendant 8 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT KOOONO‘NUl-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-tr-tt-tt-tt-tt-tt-tt-tu-tu-A OONQUI-PUJNHOKOOONQUI-PUJNHO PROOF OF SERVICE (Code 0f Civil Procedure Sections 1013a, 2015.5) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ] ]ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ] I am employed in the County 0f Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 the within action; my business address is 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250, Los Angeles, California 90071. On September 24, 2020, I served the following document(s) described as: JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 0n the interested parties in this action as follows: Fletcher C. Alford Eric A. Grover Michael D. Bruno Robert W. Spencer Seth Weisburst KELLER GROVER LLP Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 1965 Market Street 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94103 San Francisco, California 941 11 Attorneysfor Plaintifi’ Attorneysfor Defendant Stanford Health Care Tawnya Coogan and the Class X BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based 0n a court order I caused the above-entitled document(s) t0 be served through the Odyssey eFileCA E-Filing System at the website WWW.california.tvlerhost.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 0f the filing receipt/confirmation will be filed, deposited, 0r maintained with the original document(s) in this office. I declare under penalty 0f pteury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n September 24, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. C&Q/fiS Erika Mei'la ) PROOF OF SERVICE