Statement Case Management ConferenceCal. Super. - 6th Dist.June 8, 2020OOQONUIAUJN \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20CV366943 Santa Clara - Civil LEBE LAW, APLC JONATHAN M. LEBE, State Bar No. 284605 jon@lebelaw.com ZACHARY GERSHMAN, State Bar No. 348002 zachary@lebelaw.com 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 358-7046 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 2 1 7 1 04 swong@aegislawfirm.com KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar N0. 218672 khaque@aegislawfirm.com System Sy Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 10/5/2020 1:39 PM Reviewed By: System System Case #20CV366943 Envelope: 5048278 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626 jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Attorneys for Craig Russell, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CRAIG RUSSELL, individually and 0n behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, VS. NUTANIX, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 20CV366943 Honorable Patricia M. Lucas - Dept. 3 PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: October 7, 2020 Time: 2:30 p.m. Dept: 3 PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT stem OOQONUIAUJN \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Plaintiff Craig Russel (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits his Initial Status Conference Statement. Plaintiff attempted t0 submit a joint statement with Defendant, but was unsuccessqu 1. Status of Service Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter 0n June 8, 2020 and effected personal service 0n Defendant 0n July 17, 2020. Defendant filed a Notice of Appearance in this matter after-hours on October 2, 2020. At this time, Plaintiff does not expect t0 add any other additional parties to this matter. 2. Service List Jonathan M. Lebe, jon@lebelaw.com, and Zachary Gershman, zachary@lebelaw.com, 0f Lebe Law, APLC, 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021, Telephone N0.: (213) 358-7046. Samuel A. Wong, swong@aegislawfirm.com, Kashif Haque, khaque@aegislawfirm.com, and Jessica Campbell, jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com, ofAegis Law Firm, PC, 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618, Telephone N0.: (949) 379- 6250, Facsimile N0.: (949) 379-6251. 3. Status 0f Discovery Due t0 the staying 0f discovery in this case, no discovery has yet been completed in this matter. Once this stay is lifted, Plaintiff anticipates engaging in class discovery With written discovery (interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admission), depositions of Defendants and other Witnesses, and by contacting putative class members. 4. Arbitration Plaintiff is unaware 0f any applicable arbitration clause applicable t0 this matter. 5. Related Cases Plaintiff is unaware of any cases related to this litigation and does not anticipate any related litigation at this time. 1 Plaintiff provided Defendant Nutanix Inc. with a draft joint statement 0n Wednesday, September 30, 2020. However, Defendant failed t0 respond 0r provide Plaintiff with Defendant’s portion of the joint statement until Friday, October 2, 2020 at approximately 3:15 p.m. and proceeded With unilaterally filing its own initial status conference statement that evening. PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT OOQONUIAUJN \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. Factual and Legal Issues This is a wage and hour class action in which Plaintiff asserts ten causes 0f action against Defendant for: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure t0 Pay Overtime Wages; (3) Failure t0 Timely Pay A11 Earned Wages; (4) Failure t0 Provide Meal Breaks; (5) Failure t0 Permit Rest Breaks; (6) Failure t0 Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (7) Failure t0 Pay A11 Wages Due Upon Separation 0fEmployment; (8) Failure t0 Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and (9) Violation 0f Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a commercial account manager 0r other similar position by Defendant and alleges that he and other putative class members were not paid wages (including minimum, regular, and overtime wages) as a result 0f Defendant misclassifying Plaintiff and other putative class members as exempt. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed t0 pay Plaintiff and class members all overtime and double-time wages at the correct regular rate because Defendant failed to include commissions and other non-discretionary performance-based pay in the regular rate of pay. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and class members all minimum, regular, and overtime wages as a result of Defendant’s failure to properly track and pay all hours worked by Plaintiff and class members, including for off-the-clock work Which Defendants required its employees to perform during meal periods, and for other off-the-clock work. Further, Plaintiff alleges that he and other putative class members were entitled t0 receive, but failed t0 receive, all rest breaks and meal breaks or payment 0f one (1) additional hour of pay at Plaintiff and the putative class members’ regular rate ofpay when a rest break or meal break was missed. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant failed t0 accurately provide the information requires by Labor Code section 226. For example, Defendant simply listed the hours worked on the wage statements of Plaintiff and class members as 86.67; however, this did not reflect the actual hours worked by those employees. In Violation 0f the Labor Code, Plaintiff and class members were not provided With accurate itemized wage statements as a result 0f this, and other Violations. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew 0r should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled t0 reimbursement for necessary expenditures incurred in connection With the performance and execution 0f their job duties. However, Plaintiff alleges that he and other PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT OOQONUIAUJN \O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 class members did not receive adequate reimbursement for necessary business expenses, including but not limited t0 reimbursement for use 0f their personal cellular devices t0 communicate with customers and other employees, expenses related t0 their use of a tablet device for work, home office expenses, and home internet expenses as they related to employment. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of this misclassification and these policies, among others, that Defendant has failed t0 timely pay Plaintiff and putative class members all minimum and overtime wages due including upon separation 0f employment, failed to provide meal and rest periods as required by the Labor Code, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and that these policies constitute unfair business practices. Considering the fact that each 0f these causes 0f action and theories of liability is clearly and definitely pled in the Complaint, Defendant’s statement that it does not know What this case “is about” is quite surprising. 7. Alternative Dispute Resolution Plaintiff is amenable t0 private mediation. 8. Phasing 0f Discovery Plaintiff does not believe that discovery should be phased or limited in any way at this time, which includes the imposition of limited merits discovery in advance of a class certification motion. Plaintiff” s counsel finds such limitations tend t0 create more discovery disputes rather than resolve them. Dated: October 5, 2020 LEBE LAW, APLC By: Jonathgm. Lebe Attorney for Plaintiff Craig Russell, Individually and 0n behalf 0f all others similarly situated PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL STATUS 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 October 5, 2020, I served the foregoing document entitled: o PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT 0n all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by deliveringD the original g a true copy thereof on the party(ies) addressed below as follows: Elizabeth Staggs-Wilson Elisa Nadeau LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor 50 West Fernando Street, F1. 7 Los Angeles, CA 90071 San Jose, CA 951 13 Telephone: 2 1 3 .443 .4300 enadeau@littler.com Facsimile: 2 1 3 .443 .4299 Estaggs-wilson@littler.com Courtney O. Chambers LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 cchambernglittlercom Attorneysfor Defendant: NUTANIX, 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 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 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 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 t0 a facility regularly maintained Federal Express for overnight delivery. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(0); 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).) /// /// /// CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE \OOOQONUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-I-Ht-I-Ht-I-Ht- OONQM$UJNHOKOOOQONMJ>WNHO I declare under penalty of peljury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n October 5, 2020, at Irvine, California. Mp3 WDIOCCO -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE