Statement Case Management ConferenceCal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 15, 2019Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/9/2021 10:18 AM Reviewed By: System System Case #19CV358511 Envelope: 6812145 19CV358511 Santa Clara - Civil System System OOQQUI-PUJN KO 10 11 ‘12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar N0. 218672 SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626 CHELSEA D. HOLLINS, State Bar No. 305229 ch011ins@aegislawfirm.com 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Attorneys for PiaintiffKamran Khan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated LAW OFFICES 0F ISMAEL D. PEREZ ISMAEL D. PEREZ, State Bar No. 145985 easy@perezlawoffice.com 1735 N. First Street, Suite 255 San Jose, Califomia 951 12 Telephone: (408) 293-7100 Facsimile: (408) 293-7745 I Attomeys for Defendant RK Management Group LLC SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA KAMRAN KHAN, individually and on Case No. 19CV3585 I 1 behalf of ail others similarly situated, Assignedfor allpurposes to: Plaintiff, Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni Dept. I vs. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT RK MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC; and CONFERENCE STATEMENT DOES 1 through 20, Incluswe, Date: July 15, 2021 Time: 2:30 pm. Defendants Dept: 1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT DJ Plaintiff Kalm‘an Khan (“Piaintifi”) and Defendant RK Management Group LLC (“Defendant”) by and through their counsel 0f record, submit the following Joint Case Management Conference Statement in advance 0f the Case Management Conference scheduled for July 15, 2021, at 2:30 p.111. in Department 1 0f the abovc-entifled court. 2. DISCOVERY: Plaintiff‘s Position: Plaintiff served his initial set 0f Special Interrogatories and Request for Production 0n March 19, 2021. Defendant provided responses 0n April 21, 2021, which included a production 0f Plaintiff’s records and requested a protective order for the records 0f other non-exempt employees. The protective order was signed by the court 0n April 29, 2021 and Defendant provided class contact information, policies and procedures documents, and the company handbook. Plaintiff still requires time and pay records for each class member as requested in Request for Production Nos 3 and 5. Defendant’s handbook indicates that Defendant has 01‘ had other properties that utilize this same handbook. Lastly, the handbook provides a dress code for kitchen staff, but Plaintiffdid not receive class contact infotmation for any kitchen staff. Defendant’s Position: This action arises out 0f an employer/employee relationship wherein piaintiffKAMRAN KHAN, individually and 0n his own behalf asserted claims for Violation 0f rest meal breaks and lunch breaks and consequently alleged overtime violations due t0 his position (Desk Clerk). Piaintiff KHAN contends that in his position as a front. desk clerk, he was at times the only desk clerk during the evening when there is very little activity and n0 other staffing, and as a result he aileges that he was prevented from taking his rest break and meal breaks because n0 one was available t0 relieve him of his duties‘ Defendant contends that this is a small Hotel business where only 3 fuil time desk clerks and 3 paIT-time desk clerks are needed t0 cover ail the three 8 hour shifts. Plaintiff Khan is one 0f the 3-fuli time desk clerks working at the time with Defendant. Because Ofthe nature 0f the work (small Hotel industly wherein only one desk Clerk is required and available due t0 cost effectiveness, unexpected emergency situations, and which requires a specific training and knowledge) defendant RK Offered its desk Clerk H1_ JOTNT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT employees the Opportunity t0 an 011-duty meal period agreement Which is, indeed, allowed and provided under IWC wage order N0. 4-2001 (C31. Code Regs, Title. 8, § 11040). This regulation is an exception t0 the 30 minute meal break under C31. Labor Code and IWC Orders. The 011-duty meal period agreements are permitted if the following requirements are met: 1. An “0n duty” meal period shall be permitted only when the nature 0f the work prevents an employee from being relieved 0f all duty and when by written agreement between the panics an 0n~the~j0b paid meal period is agreed t0; and 2. The written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time. [See [WC Orders 1 45, Section l 1] Moreover, the Division 0f Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) also has outlined three prongs in assessing whether an Oll-duty meal period is pennissible: 1. The nature 0f the work must prevent the employee from being relieved 0f all duty during the meal period; 2. The employee and employer must have previousiy entered into a signed agreement authorizing an on-duty meal period; and 3. The signed agreement must expressiy state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the agreement at any time. [Dept Industrial Relations, DLSE Opn. Letter N0. 200209.04 (2002)]. 111 both 0f these circumstances listed above, all the conditions are present here and meet the requirements for a small hotel business and PiaintiffKHAN will not be able t0 establish that the nature 0f the work as a front desk clerk in a smali hotel such as defendant RK does not permit OII-duty meal period agreement. With respect t0 the 10 minute break, Ieaving the front desk unattended for 10 minutes is not um‘easonable, and Plaintiff Khan was allowed t0 take his 10 minute break unintemlpted at ail times. However, leaving the front desk for 30 minutes is a health hazard and risky liability for the hotel industly and having two front desk clerks at ail times is cost prohibitive and not wan‘anted for many reasons. Therefore, at least one desk clerk should be at the front desk at all times throughout the night due t0 emergencies, should they arise. In this case, prior t0 engaging in his employment, Plaintiff KHAN was presented with a -2- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Paid, Working Meal Period Agreement", which specifically addressed the nature 0f the work and the situation in the event that 110 staffwas available t0 relieve him 0f his duties and Plaintiff KHAN agreed, signed the agreement and was well aware 0f the situation in that desk Clerks at times may have to work alone with 110 replacement. This is the nature 0f the small Hotei business. Defendant contends that Plaintiff was paid properly and there are no wage and hour Violations. As t0 ail other employees, such as maintenance workers (currently 1, but 2 at the time Plaintiff was employed) 01‘ maid workers (currently 2, but 4 at the time Plaintiff was empioyee) who comprise the balance of the empioyees at Defendant's motel business, Defendant contends that they are not pan 0f the Paid, Working Meai Period Agreement which gave rise t0 Plaintiff‘s allegations for wage and hour Violations. Just because Plaintiff is suspicious 0f wage and hour violations as t0 them should not be the basis for a class action and Plaintiff should not be allowed to engage in a discovery fishing expedition, especially since Plaintiffhas n0 legitimate facts 01‘ evidence t0 allege that any maintenance worker 01‘ maid has complained about any wage and hour violations. Therefore, from Defendant’s perspective, the total number 0f employees subject t0 Plaintiff wage and hour claims (which defendant disputes) is a total 0f 3 full time Desk Cierks and 3 Part time Desk Clerks. Not enough t0 sustain a class action. Hence, Defendant respectfully submits that this case is not appropriate for a class action and Plaintiff should not be aiiowed t0 conduct an intmsive fishing expedition under the auspices ofa class action process. Dated: July 8, 2021 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC Chelsea D. Hollins Attorneys for Plaintiff Kamran Khan -3- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 ll l3 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: July 8, 2021 LA‘W OFFICES OF ISMAEL D. PEREZ IsmaeVD, Perez Attorneys for Defendant RK Management Group LLC _4_ 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 0f 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 9, 2021, I served the foregoing document entitled: 0 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: Ismael D. Perez LAW OFFICES OF ISMAEL D. PEREZ 1735 N. First Street, Suite 255 San Jose, CA 951 12 Tel.: 408.293.7100 Fax: 408.293.7745 easv@perezlawoffice.com Attorneysfor Defendants .' RKMANAGEMENT GROUP LLC 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 0n that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that 0n motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date 0f 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 0f 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 to 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) t0 be served Via electronic transmission to the addressee(s) listed above 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).) I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing ls true and correct. Executed 0n July 9, 2021, at Irvine, California. Ma / A a Drocco CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE