Conference Case ManagementCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 18, 202010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 200V365251 Santa Clara - Civil AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar N0. 21 8672 SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar N0. 2 1 7104 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar N0. 280626 SIMON KWAK, State Bar N0. 297362 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com skwak@aegislawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Richie Medina, individually, and on behalf 0f all others similarly situated. PAYNE & FEARS, LLP JEFFREY K. BROWN, State Bar N0. 162957 RANA AYAZI, State Bar N0. 329097 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone: (949) 85 1 -1 100 Facsimile: (949) 85 1 -12 1 2 Attorneys for Defendant APCT, INC. System Sy Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/1 7/2020 8:41 AM Reviewed By: System System Case #20CV365251 Envelope: 4615109 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA RICHIE MEDINA, individually and 0n Case N0. 20CV365251 behalf 0f all other aggrieved employees, Assignedfor allpurposes t0: Plaintiff, Hon. PatriciaM Lucas Dept. 3 vs. JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT APCT, INC; and DOES 1 through 20, CONFERENCE STATEMENT “1011151“ Date: July 24, 2020 Defendanm Tune: 10:00 am. Dept: stem JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Richie Medina (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant APCT, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) submit this Joint Initial Case Management Conference Statement in advance 0f the conference set for July 24, 2020, as follows: 1. STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADDITION OF PARTIES At this time, Plaintiff does not intend t0 add any additional parties. 2. SERVICE LIST Plaintiff is represented by Kashif Haque, Samuel A. Wong, Jessica L. Campbell, and Simon Kwak of Aegis Law Firm, PC, 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92618, telephone: (949) 379-6250; fax: (949) 379-625 1; email: khaque@aegislawfirm.com, swong@aegislawfirm.com, jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com, and skwak@aegislawfirm.com. Defendant is represented by Jeffrey K. Brown and Rana Ayazi of Payne & Fears LLP, 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1 100, Irvine, California 92614; telephone: (949) 85 1 -1 100; fax: (949) 85 1 -1212; email: jkb@paynefears.com, and ra@paynefears.com. 3. STATUS OF DISCOVERY Pursuant t0 the Court’s Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline, the Parties have not engaged in formal discovery. 4. ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS a. Plaintiff’s Position: Defendant’s counsel provided a copy 0f an arbitration agreement purportedly entered into by Plaintiff. Plaintiffs counsel is in the process 0f reviewing the agreement and will meet and confer with Defendant as t0 whether motion practice will be necessary. Notwithstanding Defendant’s contention that an enforceable arbitration agreement governed Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff” s First Amended Complaint includes a cause 0f action under the Private Attorneys General Act 0f 2004, codified at Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”), which is a non-arbitrable Claim. See Iskanian v. CLS Transportation LOS Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 387-88 (2014); see also Williams v. Superior Court (Pinkerton), 237 Cal. App. 4th 642, 648-49. Therefore, at the very least, the PAGA claim must proceed in this Court. -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 b. Defendant’s Position: Defendant contends that Plaintiffs first seven out 0f eight causes 0f action are subj ect t0 an enforceable agreement t0 arbitrate their claims. Defendant further contends that while Plaintiffs causes 0f action are t0 be arbitrated, the PAGA claim should remain with the Court, and all related proceedings should be stayed pending resolution 0f the arbitration. Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides: If an application has been made t0 a court 0f competent jurisdiction, whether in this State 0r not, for an order t0 arbitrate a controversy which is an issue involved in an action 0r proceeding pending before a court 0f this State and such application is undetermined, the court in which such action 0r proceeding is pending shall, upon motion 0f a party t0 such action 0r proceeding, stay the action 0r proceeding until the application for an order t0 arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration 0f such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order t0 arbitrate 0r until such earlier time as the court specifies. Where an employee asserts both arbitrable claims and nonarbitrable PAGA claims, the trial court must order a stay 0f trial court proceedings pursuant t0 section 1281 .4 until the arbitration claims are resolved. See Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Ina, 234 Cal. App. 4th 947, 965 (2015). This is [b]ecause the issues subj ect t0 litigation under the PAGA might overlap [with] those that are subject t0 arbitration 0f [a plaintiffs] individual claims . . . The stay’s purpose is t0 preserve the status quo until the arbitration is resolved, preventing any continuing trial court proceedings from disrupting and rendering ineffective the arbitrator’s jurisdiction t0 decide the issues that are subj ect t0 arbitration. Id. Since seven out 0f eight causes 0f action are arbitrable claims, not allowing a stay 0f the PAGA claim would severely disrupt and render ineffective the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not agree, Defendant will submit a Motion t0 Compel. RELATED LITIGATION The Parties are not aware 0f any related litigation pending in other courts. LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES a. Plaintiff’s Position: This action is a putative wage and hour class action and a representative action under -2- JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAGA. Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Defendant as an hourly non-exempt employee and that Defendant failed t0 pay all minimum and overtime wages, failed t0 provide all meal and rest periods 0r additional compensation in lieu thereof, failed t0 provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed t0 pay all wages due timely during the relevant time period. b. Defendant’s Position: Defendant denies all allegations. Defendant denies that Plaintiff, 0r any employee 0f Defendant, has been denied minimum wages, overtime wages, meal 0r rest periods as required by law, accurate wage statements, 0r wages due upon separation 0f employment. Defendant also denies Violating Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. Defendant maintains and enforces policies in full compliance with applicable law. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff is subj ect t0 an enforceable agreement t0 arbitrate their claims. 7. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION a. Plaintiff’s Position: Plaintiff is open to early private mediation as long as Defendant is willing t0 produce adequate information for Plaintiff t0 evaluate the value 0f the case through formal or informal discovery. b. Defendant’s Position: Defendant is also open t0 early private mediation. Defendant would require Plaintiffs deposition prior t0 the mediation. 8. PHASING OF CLASS DISCOVERY a. Plaintiff’s Position: Plaintiff requests that the stay be lifted without formal phasing. Plaintiff does not believe phasing 0fdiscovery 0r production is necessary as it tends t0 create, rather than resolve, discovery disputes regarding what constitutes “merits” discovery. “California law has long made clear that t0 require a party t0 supply proof 0f any claims 0r defenses as a condition 0f discovery in support 0f those claims 0r defenses is t0 place the cart before the horse.” Williams v. Superior Court -3- JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT .p \OOOQONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Marshalls ofCA, LLC), 3 Cal. 5th 531, 551 (2017). Whether this case proceeds on a classwide or representative PAGA basis, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery relevant to the putative class members and other aggrieved employees. Plaintiff’s initial discovery requests will seek putative class members’ contact information, time and pay records, and policy documents, such as employee handbooks. b. Defendant’s Position: Defendant concurs. 9. TIMELINE FOR CASE MANAGEMENT The Parties propose that the Court set a Further Case Management Conference no earlier than 90 days from the July 21, 2020, Initial Case Management Conference (October 2020). Dated: July 16, 2020 AEGIS W FIRM, PC A Si‘rfign Kwak Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: July 16, 2020 PAYNE & FEARS, LLP By: /s/ Rana Avazi Jeffrey K. Brown Rana Ayazi Attorneys for Defendant -4- JOINT INITIAL 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 0f Orange, State 0f California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party t0 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 17, 2020, I served the foregoing document entitled: 0 JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by deliveringD the original a true copy thereof 0n the party(ies) addressed below as follows: Jeffrey Brown Rana Ayazi PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: 949.85 1 .1 100 Facsimile: 949.851.1212 'kb a nefears.com ra a nefears.com X (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 fillly prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that 0n motion of 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 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(C); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(0).) D (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused said document(s) t0 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. § 1011; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(2)(A)-) I declare under penalty of peljury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ' Executed on July 17, 2020, at Irvine, California. Andrea Drocco CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE