Statement Case Management Conference

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.May 22, 2020

flO‘xUl-RUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20CV366688 Santa Clara - Civil AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar N0. 218672 SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217 104 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626 ALEXANDER G.L. DAVIES, State Bar N0. 328125 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: icampbell@aegislawfirm.com adavies@aegislawfim.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Phillip Batista, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. ANDREW J. HOAG, SBN 283130 E-Mail ahoag@fisherphillips.com FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (2 1 3) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 PHILIP J. SMITH, SBN 232462 E-Mail psmith@fisherphillips.com One Embarcadero Center, Suite 250 San Francisco, California 941 11 Telephone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 Attorneys for Defendant RAILSERVE, INC. System Sys Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 9/10/2020 1:12 PM Reviewed By: System System Case #20CV366688 Envelope: 4910652 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PHILLIP BATISTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. RAILSERVE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.2 20CV366688 Assigned for all purposes t0: Hon. Brian C. Walsh Dept: 1 JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: September 17, 2020 Time: 2:30 pm. Dept: 1 JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT tern 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Phillip Batista (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Rail Serve, Inc. (“Defendant”), (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby submit this Joint Initial Case Management Conference Statement. 1. POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL PARTIES: At this time, the Parties do not intend to add any additional parties. A11 parties have been served. 2. PARTIES AND COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Phillip Batista Plaintiff” s Counsel: AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC Kashif Haque, khaque@aegislawfirm.com; Samuel A. Wong, swong@aegislawfirm.com; Jessica L. Campbell, jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com; Alexander G.L. Davies, adavies@aegislawfirm.com 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Defendant: Railserve, Inc. Defendant’s Counsel: FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP Andrew J. Hoag, ahoag@fisherphillips.com 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Philip J. Smith, psmith@fisherphillips.com One Embarcadero Center Suite 250 San Francisco, California 941 11 Telephone: (4 1 5) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 3. 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. APPLICABILITY OF ARBITRATION CLAUSES: There is no applicable Arbitration Agreement. 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 5. OTHER RELATED ACTIONS: The Parties are unaware of any other pending related matters. 6. FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES: Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit against Defendant for failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest breaks 0r premiums in lieu thereof, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failing t0 pay all wages upon the separation 0f employment. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks t0 recover civil penalties pursuant to PAGA. Defendant denies the wage-and-hour issues alleged and denies that this matter meets the requisite California requirements 0f numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Defendant further denies that Plaintiff is a suitable class representative. 7. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: The Parties are discussing early mediation and working 0n selecting a mediator. The Parties are open t0 early mediation as long as they can agree on the scope 0f discovery production t0 permit them t0 mediate in good faith. 8. WHETHER DISCOVERY SHOULD BE PHASED: Plaintiff does not believe formal phasing 0f discovery or 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 of discovery in support 0f those claims or defenses is t0 place the cart before the horse.” Williams v. Superior Court (Marshalls 0f CA, LLC), 3 Cal. 5th 531, 551 (2017). Plaintiff requests that the stay be lifted without formal phasing. Defendant is willing to engage in informal discovery production that permits the parties to mediate the matter in good faith without the parties’ incursion 0f unnecessary litigation expenses. Defendant maintains that discovery should be bifurcated in this matter. “Courts [] bifurcate because if a case is not certified as a class action, it will effectively be over; thus having full merits discovery prior t0 the certification motion may be wasteful.” (3 Newberg 0n Class Actions (5th ed.) 10:7 Bifurcating the issues-Discovery.) “Initial discovery in most class actions aims at class issues rather [than] the merits 0f the case ....” (Cohelan 0n California Class Actions (2019-2020 ed.) Ch. 6. 3 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 The Precertification Stage, § 6:20 Precertification discovery-In general.) Dated: September 9, 2020 Dated: September 9, 2020 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC Kw flu . Alexander G.L. Davies Attorneys for Plaintiff FISHER & PHILLIPS LLLP By' \HJ)‘ Attorneys for Defendant . Andrew J. Hoag Philip J. Smith 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 September 10, 2020, I served the foregoing document entitled: o JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 0n 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: Andrew Hoag Fisher & Phillips LLP 444 South Flower Steet, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.330.4451 Facsimile: 213.330.4501 ahoag@fisherphillips.com Attorneysfor Defendant: RAILSERVE, 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 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).) g (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 0n September 10, 2020, at Irvine, California. a A ea Dro CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE