Statement Case Management ConferenceCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 18, 2020ZOCV365252 Santa Clara - Civil System Sy stern UI-hbJN \OOO\IO\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC Electronically Filed SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104 by Superior Court of CA, KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672 County of Santa Clara, JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626 on 2/16/2021 11:49 AM ALEXANDER DAVIES, State Bar No. 328125 Reviewed By: System System 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 case #ZOCV365252 Irvine, California 92618 Envelope: 5843678 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: icamnbell@ae,qislawfirm.com adavies@aegislawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Victor Flores, individually, and on behalf 0f all others similarly situated. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. RICHARD A. LEASIA, State Bar N0. 73397 RLeasiangittler£om BENJAMIN A. EMMERT, State Bar No. 212157 BEmmerthlittler£0m 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, California 951 13-2303 Telephone: (408) 998-4150 Facsimile: (408) 288-5686 Attorneys for Defendants ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA VICTOR FLORES, individually and on Case No. 20CV365252 behalf 0f all others similarly situated, Assignedfor all purposes t0: Plaintiff, Hon. Patricia M. Lucas Dept. 3 vs. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT Acco ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC; CONFERENCE STATEMENT and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Date: February 17, 2020 Defendants. Tune: 2330 P-m- Dept: 3 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Victor Flores (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) submit this Joint Case Management Conference Statement in advance 0f the conference set for February 17, 2021, as follows: 1. BRIEF CASE HISTORY: On March 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed this putative wage and hour class action, alleging that Defendant: (1) failed t0 pay overtime wages, (2) failed t0 provide meal periods, (3) failed t0 permit rest breaks, (4) failed t0 provide accurate itemized wage statements, (5) failed t0 pay all wages due upon separation 0f employment, (6) and committed unfair business practices. On July 10, 2020, Plaintiff amended his complaint t0 add claims for the enforcement 0f California Labor §§ 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”). Plaintiff seeks damages, unpaid wages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and penalties 0n behalf 0f himself, the State of California, and all 0f Defendant’s non-exempt employees employed within the State 0f California during the relevant time period. 2. CASE UPDATE SINCE PREVIOUS CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERNCE a. Plaintiff’s Position: On January 6, 2021, this matter was before the Court for a hearing on Defendant’s Demurrer t0 Plaintiff” s First Amended Complaint and Motion t0 Strike. Following the hearing, the Court issued an Order denying Defendant’s Motion t0 Strike Plaintiffs proposed Class Definition and overruling Defendant’s Demurrer t0 Plaintiff” s PAGA claims. However, the Court partially sustained Defendant’s demurrer as t0 the adequacy 0f Plaintiff’s PAGA notice letter t0 the LWDA, and granted Plaintiff” s 90 days leave t0 cure the defect by submitting a more detailed letter and amending the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In compliance with the Court’s Order, Plaintiff submitted his amended PAGA notice letter t0 the LWDA 0n January 12, 2021, addressing each 0f the alleged deficiencies in Plaintiff’s notice. Once the 65-day exhaustion period has ended, Plaintiff will amend his FAC accordingly. Plaintiffs counsel was first informed 0f the lawsuit Heredia v. ACCO Engineered Systems, Ina, referenced below, in this Joint Statement. Given the progress that this case has already made, Plaintiff” s counsel expects they would oppose any efforts at coordination as it tends -2- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to cause many months of delay. b. Defendant’s Position: Following the last case management conference, ACCO brought its demurrer and motion to strike portions ofPlaintiff” s First Amended Complaint. The Court sustained ACCO’S demurrer and dismissed Plaintiffs cause 0f action under California Private Attorneys’ General Act (“PAGA”). The Court granted Plaintiff 90 days leave t0 amend. Plaintiff has not amended its Complaint. Depending on how Plaintiff amends, ACCO may file a further pleading challenge. Since the last case management conference, ACCO has learned that another alleged putative wage and hour class action has been brought in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Heredia V. ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number ZOSTCV481 1 1 (the “Heredia Lawsuit”) The plaintiff in the Heredia Lawsuit is brought 0n behalf 0f the same alleged putative class and asserts the same 0r substantially similar claims as this action. ACCO is preparing and filing a petition for coordination with the Judicial Council requesting it appoint a coordination motion judge t0 determine Whether the Heredia Lawsuit and this action be coordinated. In conjunction with the coordination petition, ACCO is requesting the Judicial Council issue a stay order pending the determination 0n coordination. 3. STATUS OF DISCOVERY a. Plaintiff’s Position: After the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion to Lift the Discovery Stay, Plaintiff served his initial discovery requests 0n Defendant on October 8, 2020, consisting 0f three Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) and nine Requests for Production 0f Documents (“RPD”). On November 9, 2020, Defendant submitted its responses. However, Defendant’s responses were insufficient and Defendant failed to produce any responsive documents. While the Parties met and conferred regarding Defendants’ deficient discovery responses Between November 17, 2020 and January 18, 2021 , the parties remained at an impasse. Attempting t0 resolve the Parties’ dispute informally, and avoid unnecessary motion practice, Plaintiff requested an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) with the Court. At the -3- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT U‘IAUJN \OOO\10\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 January 29, 2021 IDC, Defendant refused to agree to supplement its responses for the class. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff leave t0 file his motions t0 compel. On February 11, 2021 , Plaintiff filed his Motions to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs SROG, Set One and Plaintiff” s RPD, Set One (“Motions”). Plaintiff has reserved a hearing date for both Motions on April 21, 2021 at 1:30 p.rn. b. Defendant’s Position: Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Discovery. During the recent informal discovery conference, the parties discussed their discovery dispute and had agreed t0 meet and confer t0 try and reach an agreement 0f the scope 0f the definition 0f the putative class. Plaintiff however, did not do so and instead filed the instant motions to compel. Despite Plaintiff’s actions, Defendant is preparing amended responses in accordance with the discussion at the informal discovery conference. Plaintiff’s Responses t0 Defendant’s Discovery. Defendant propounded discovery to Plaintiff to ascertain the factual basis for his claims and certification issues. Plaintiff” s responses are utterly deficient and constitute an abuse of the discovery process. Defendant is in the process ofpreparing a meet and confer letter and will bring a motion to compel ifPlaintiffdoes not correct his patently deficient responses. 4. TIMELINE FOR CASE MANAGEMENT The Parties propose that the Court set a Further Case Management Conference for the same day as the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motions, April 21, 2021 at 1:30 pm. Dated: February 12, 2021 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC Kw flu Alexander G.L. fiavies Attorneys for Plaintiff -4- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: February 12, 2021 By: LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. /s/ Beniamin A. Emmert Richard A. Leasia Benjamin A. Emmert Attorneys for Defendant -5- 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 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 February 16, 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 delivering D the originalg a true copy thereof on the party(ies) addressed below as follows: Richard A. Leasia Benjamin A. Emmert LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95 1 13-2303 Telephone: 408.998.4150 Facsimile: 408.288.5686 rleasia@littler.com bemmert littler.com Attorneysfor Defendan t: ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC. 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 of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after date of 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).) E (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 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 16, 2021, at Irvine, California. CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE