Statement Case Management ConferenceCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 18, 2020UI-hUJN \OOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ZOCV365252 Santa Clara - Civil AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 2 1 7104 KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626 ALEXANDER DAVIES, State Bar N0. 328 125 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 9261 8 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: icamnbell@aegislawfirm.com adavies@aegislawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Victor Flores, individually, and on behalf 0f all others similarly situated. 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, VS. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, D ,ate. Time: Dept. : Defendants. Assignedfor all purposes t0: Plaintiff, Hon. Patricia M. Lucas Dept. 3 PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC; CONFERENCE STATEMENT R. Fle 'ning Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 11/23/2021 11:17 AM Reviewed By: R. Fleming Case #20CV365252 Envelope: 7723961 November 24, 2021 2:30 pm. 3 PLAINTIFF’S 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”) submits this Joint Statement in advance of the Case Management Conference set for November 24, 2021, as follows: 1. BRIEF CASE HISTORY: This wage and hour class and representative PAGA action has been pending before the Court since March 18, 2020. As plead in his March 22, 2021 Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant: (1) failed t0 pay minimum wages, (2) failed to pay overtime wages, (3) failed t0 provide meal periods, (4) failed to permit rest breaks, (5) failed t0 reimburse necessary business expenses, (6) failed t0 provide accurate itemized wage statements, (7) failed t0 timely pay wages, (8) failed t0 pay all wages due upon separation 0f employment , (9) committed unfair business practices, and (10) claims for the enforcement 0f PAGA. Plaintiff seeks damages, unpaid wages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and penalties 0n behalf 0f himself, the State 0f California, and all 0f Defendant’s non-exempt employees employed within the State 0f California during the relevant time period. Plaintiffs counsel attempted t0 obtain Defendant’s portions to submit a Joint Statement t0 the Court. However, as Plaintiffs counsel did not receive a response, Plaintiff hereby submit this Plaintist-only statement. 2. CASE UPDATE: a. Plaintiff’s Position: This matter was last before the Court for a hearing on Defendant’s Motion t0 Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or, Alternatively Stay Proceedings; Alternatively Request for Statement 0f Decision (“Motion”) 0n November 3, 2021. The Court issued its final order on November 10, 2021, denying the Motion as t0 the Flores case, and partially granting the Motion as to the related action Martin Heredia v. ACCO Engineered Services, Inc. et. al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case Nos. ZOSTCV481 11 (“Heredia I ”). The Court’s Order specifically notes, Defendant is not entitled t0 arbitrate any claims in the instant Flores action, or t0 compel arbitration ofthe putative class members in Flores. /// -2- PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT UI-hbJN KOOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. STATUS OF DISCOVERY a. Plaintiff’s Position: On July 22, 2021, this Court issued an Order compelling Defendant to provide code- compliant supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s initial sets of Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) and Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), without objections. The supplemental responses and production 0f discovery were due 30 days after transmittal 0f the Belaire- West notice, 0r 0n September 30, 2021. However, despite having completed the Belaire notice process, n0 supplemental responses have been produced. On November 15, 2021, Defendant produced certain responsive documents to Plaintiffs RPD No. 2 (seeking Plaintiff’s Timekeeping Records). However, these documents pertain only to Plaintiff and do not include any discovery 0r relevant data as it pertains t0 the class. Most recently, Plaintiff sent an email t0 Defendant’s counsel attempting t0 meet and confer on these issues. However, if the Parties are unable t0 resolve this dispute informally, further intervention from the Court may be required t0 enforce the Court’s previous orders. 4. TIMELINE FOR CASE MANAGEMENT a. Plaintiff’s Position: Once Plaintiff receives these supplemental responses and Defendant’s respective production of documents for the class members, he should be in a position to set a class certification deadline and determine whether informal resolution and mediation would be appropriate. Plaintiff proposes that the Court should set an additional Case Management Conference in this matter no earlier than 90 days from the present hearing date (February 0r March 2022). Dated: November 23, 2021 AEGIS LAW FIRM, C By: Alexander\G.L. deies Attorneys for Plaintiff -3- PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT \OOOQONUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tv-lr-tr-tv-tr-tr-Av-np-tr-A OOQONUI-bUJNv-‘OKOOOQQUI-PWNHO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, am employed in the County 0f Orange, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 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 November 23, 2021, I served the foregoing document entitled: o PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by delivering D the originalE a true copy thereof on the party(ies) addressed below as follows: Richard A. Leasia Benjamin A. Emmert Edwin Aiwazian Lawyers for Justice, PC LITTLER MENDELSgN’ P'C‘ 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 50 W. san Fernando, 7 Floor Glendale CA 91203 San Jose, CA 951 13-2303 edwin@1’f« C com Telephone: 408.998.4150 ' FaCSImlle: 4082885686 Attorneysfor PlaintiflMARTIN HEREDIA rleasia@littler.com bemmert littler.com Attorneysfor Defendant: 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 on that same day With postage thereon fully prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date 0r 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 to 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(c).) 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 t0 the addressed named above. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 101 1; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(2)(A).) / // / // / // /// CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \OOOQONUI-bUJNr-t NNNNNNNNNr-tv-lr-tr-tv-tr-tr-Av-np-tr-A OOQONUI-bUJNv-‘OKOOOQQUI-PWNHO I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n November 23, 2021 , at Irvine, California. “.L. AM' ‘ Delaney Gravs -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE