Statement Case Management Conference

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 24, 2020

KOOOQO\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ZOCV373973 Santa Clara - Civil DANIEL T. HO AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. DANIEL T. HO (State Bar No. 205852) Email: dho@dthassociates.c0m BROOKE W. WALDROP (State Bar No. 314486) Email: bww@dthassociates.com 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (818) 333-5282 Attorneys for Plaintiff TAMIR QADREE FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP LONNIE D. GIAMELA (State Bar No. 228435) Email: lgiamela@fisherphillins.com CHRISTINA M. VIER (State Bar No. 3 17247) Email: cvier@fisherphillips.com 444 South Flower Street Suite 1500 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone (213) 330-4500 Facsimile (213) 330-4501 Attorneys for Defendant ADT LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TAMIR QADREE, as an Aggrieved Case No.: 20CV373973 Employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), PAGA ENFORCEMENT ACTION Plaintiff, [Assigned For A11 Purposes to Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni - Dept 1] VS. ADT LLC, a Delaware limited liability CONFERENCE STATEMENT company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Date: April 1, 2021 Time: 2:30 p.m. Defendants Place: Dept. 1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT Complaint Filed: November 24, 2020 Trial Date: None Set System System Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 3/25/2021 11:19 AM Reviewed By: System System Case #20CV373973 Envelope: 6109685 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT FP 402002421 \DOOQO\ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant t0 the Court’s Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline (the “Order”) and California Rule of Court 3.750, counsel for plaintiff Tamir Qadree (“Plaintiff”) and defendant ADT LLC (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) submit the instant Joint Case Management Conference Statement: 1. ADDITIONAL PARTIES The Parties do not anticipate adding new parties at this time. 2. SERVICE LIST DANIEL T. HO AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. DANIEL T. HO (State Bar No. 205852) Email: dho@dthassociates.com BROOKE W. WALDROP (State Bar No. 3 14486) Email: bww@dthassociates.com 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91 505 Telephone: (818) 333-5282 Attorneys for Plaintiff TAMIR QADREE FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP LONNIE D. GIAMELA (State Bar No. 228435) Email: 1giamela@fisherphillips.com CHRISTINA M. VIER (State Bar No. 3 17247) E-Mail cvier@fisherphillips.com 444 South Flower Street Suite 1500 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone (2 1 3) 330-4500 Facsimile (2 1 3) 330-4501 Attorneys for Defendant ADT LLC 3. DESCRIPTION OF DISCOVERY The Court’s Order has stayed the service of discovery. The Parties have complied with the Court’s Order and had not served or otherwise propounded discovery. 4. ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS The Parties agree that PAGA claims are not subject t0 arbitration agreements. Moreover, the Parties agree that they have not entered into an arbitration agreement. 5. RELATED LITIGATION 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 The Parties are aware 0f only one related litigation pending against Defendant. The Parties have described said litigation in a Stipulation and Proposed Order t0 Transfer the instant action t0 San Joaquin County Superior Court. Assuming the Court finds the instant action appropriate for transfer 0n the terms discussed therein, the Parties intend t0 stipulate t0 consolidation 0f this action with Plaintiff’s class action pending in San Joaquin County Superior Court. Tamir Qadree v. ADTLLC, filed February 2020 in San Joaquin County Superior Court a. Class action b. Class definition: A11 persons who worked for Defendants as non-exempt commissions-paid employees in California, within four years prior t0 the filing of the initial complaint until the date 0f trial. Claims for Violations 0f California Labor Code: (1) §§ 226.2 (Failure t0 Compensate for Rest Periods and Other Non-productive Time); (2) 1182. 12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 (Unpaid Minimum Wages); (3) §§ 226.7, 5 12(a), 5 16, and 1198 (Failure t0 Provide Meal Periods); (4) §§ 226.7, 5 16, and 1198 (Failure t0 Authorize and Permit Rest Periods); (5) §§ 226(a), 1174(d), and 1198 (Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure t0 Maintain Payroll Records); (6) § 204 (Failure t0 Timely Pay Wages During Employment); (7) § 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); (8) §§ 17200, et seq. (unlawful business practices) for all previously-listed California Labor Code Violations and including §§ 222.5 (Failure t0 Pay Costs 0f Mandatory Physical Examinations and/or Drug Testing) and 2810.5(a)(1)(A)-(C) (Failure t0 Provide Written Notice 0f Information Material t0 Employment). d. Judge: Barbara Kronlund (Department 10D) 6. MAJOR LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES This is an enforcement action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act 0f 2004, California Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”) t0 recover civil penalties and any 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 other available relief 0n behalf 0f Plaintiff, the State 0f California, and other current and former employees who worked as exempt, “commissions”-paid employees at Defendant’s facilities in California and who received at least one wage statement since March 16, 2019. Plaintiff contends Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees as “Outside Salespersons” who are “exempt” from various wage-and-hour protections as required by California law. The major factual and legal issues t0 be determined in this case include the following: (1) whether Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees as “Outside Salespersons” who are “exempt” from various wage-and-hour protections as required by California law; (2) whether Defendants violated § 226.2 by failing t0 separately compensate for rest periods and other non-productive time; (3) whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 1182. 12, 1194, 1197, and 1198 and the applicable IWC wage order by failing t0 compensate Plaintiff and other non-party Aggrieved Employees with minimum wages for all hours worked; (4) whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 226.7, 5 12, 516, 1198, and the applicable IWC wage orders by failing t0 provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with compliant meal periods; (5) whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§226.7, 5 16, 1198 and the applicable IWC wage order by failing t0 provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with compliant rest periods; (6) whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 226(a), 1198 and the applicable IWC wage order by failing t0 provide accurate and complete wage statements t0 Plaintiff and non-party Aggrieved Employees; (7) whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 1174(d), 1198 and the applicable IWC wage order by failing t0 maintain payroll records; (8) whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 204 by failing t0 pay Plaintiff and non-party Aggrieved Employees all earned wages during employment; (9) whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 201, 202, and 203 by failing to pay Plaintiff and non-party Aggrieved Employees all earned wages upon termination; (10) whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 222.5 by failing t0 pay costs 0f mandatory physical examinations and/or drug testing; (1 1) whether Defendants violated Labor Code § 223 by secretly paying Plaintiff and non-party Aggrieved Employees a lower wage; (12) whether Defendants violated 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 Labor Code § 2802 by failing t0 reimburse Plaintiff and non-party Aggrieved Employees for all business expenses necessarily incurred; and (13) whether Defendants failed t0 provide written notice 0f information material t0 other aggrieved employees’ employment with Defendants. On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff uploaded an amended notice t0 the LWDA concerning the following additional questions 0f law and fact: (14) whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 by failing t0 pay overtime wages; (1 5) whether Defendants violated Labor Code §§ 221 and 224 by unlawfully deducting a portion 0f wages previously paid t0 Plaintiff and non-party Aggrieved Employees through a commission chargeback compensation plan that does not meet legal requirements; and (1 6) whether Defendants failed t0 enter into an enforceable contract for commission wages with Plaintiff and non-party Aggrieved Employees. Plaintiff expects t0 timely file a First Amended Complaint that includes said claims prior t0 the Case Management Conference. Plaintiff reserves the right t0 identify additional legal 0r factual issues and theories 0f recovery discovered as the case progresses. Defendant denies Plaintiffs claims and contentions and denies any and all liability. 7. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Parties are open t0 engaging in mediation with a private mediator 0n certain terms and conditions. The Parties expect t0 propound formal discovery notwithstanding the Parties will meet and confer as t0 the scope 0f informal discovery that will be sufficient for Plaintiff t0 evaluate his claims prior t0 mediation. Plaintiff anticipates deposing Defendant’s corporate designees. 8. PHASED DISCOVERY The Parties d0 not believe that an order phasing discovery into “liability” and “merits” discovery is appropriate because, as a PAGA action, this case does not require class certification. 5 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT \DOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: March 25, 2021 Dated: March 25, 2021 By: Respectfully submitted, DANIEL T. HO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 997mm DMT Ho Esq. Brooke W. Waldrop, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff TAMIR QADREE Respectfully submitted, FISHER & PHI LIPS LLP Lonnie Giamela Christina Vier Attorneys for Defendant ADT LLC 6 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF 0F SERVICE (CCP § 1013(a) and 2015.5) I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 the within action; am employed with Fisher & Phillips LLP and my business address is 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500, Los Angeles, California 90071. On March 25, 2021, I served the foregoing document entitled JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by placing D the original g a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Daniel T. H0 Attorneyfor Plaintifi’, Tamir Qadree Brooke W. Waldrop DANIEL T. HO AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. Tel: (818) 333-5282 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Email: dho@dthassociat€s.com Burbank, CA 91505 bww@dthassociates.com [by ELECTRONIC SERVICE] - Based 0n a court order 0r an agreement 0f the parties t0 accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents t0 be sent t0 the persons at the electronic notification address listed above. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed March 25, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. Amy Stark By: fW Print Name L/Signature 1 PROOF OF SERVICE FP 395476721