Statement filedCal. Super. - 5th Dist.May 21, 2021E-FILED 9/14/2021 5:06 PM Superior Court of California County of Fresno By: L Peterson, Deputy SAGASER, WATKINS 8: WIELAND PC A‘lTORN EYS AT LAW 5260 North Palm Avenue. Suite 400 Fresno. California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 LII \OOONON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Howard A. Sagaser, State Bar No. 72492 Cody S. Chapple, State Bar N0. 332206 SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND, PC 5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 400 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421 -7000 Facsimile: (559) 473-1483 Attorneys for Defendant, BOGHOSIAN RAISIN PACKING CO., INC. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO SABINA PACHECO, individually and on Case N0.: 21CECG01460 behalf 0f all other similarly situated, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT 0F Plaintiff(s), UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY V. JUDGMENT BOGHOSIAN RAISIN PACKING Date: March 22, 2022 COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Time: 3:30 p.m. inclusive, Dept. 403 Defendant(s). Complaint Filed: May 21, 2021 Trial Date: None Set Defendant Boghosian Raisin Packing Company, Inc. (“Boghosian”) respectfully submits this Statement of Undisputed Material Facts under California Code 0f Civil Procedure 437C, and California Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.1350. The undisputed material facts below prove “the contrary of the plaintist allegations as a matter 0f law.” (Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Ca1.App.4th 1591, 1957) 1 DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 01267100026 - 328406.] SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC ATI‘ORN EYS AT lAW 5260 North Palm Avenue. Suite 400 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 H AWN \OOOQO‘x 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Issue #1: Plaintiff Failed t0 Satisfy Requirements for Aggrieved Employee to Commence Civil Action Under California Labor Code 2699.3 Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Evidence: 1. Plaintiff answered “No” at her deposition to the question “Have you ever filed a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner about Boghosian?” Evidence: Declaration of Howard A. Sagaser in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Sagaser Decl.”) at 1[ 3; EX. A (“Pacheco Dep.”) at 17:18~21. 2. Plaintiff answered “No” at her deposition to the question “Boghosian, before the lawsuit was filed, produced over 400 pages of your personnel file and some payroll records. Have you ever looked at those documents?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 16:13-16. 3. Plaintiff answered, “I haven’t.” at her deposition t0 the question “Have you looked at your time records to determine what days you claim you missed work because 0f the machines breaking down?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 21 : 17-20. 4. Plaintiff answered “N0” at her deposition to the question “Have you discussed your lawsuit against Boghosian with anyone who you ever worked With at Boghosian.” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 37:23-38: 1. 5. Plaintiff answered, “About a month ago, more or less” at her deposition to the question “Since May let, 2021, has anyone translated the complaint against Boghosian to you?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 34:23-35:2. 6. Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice of Labor Code Violations, filed with the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency 0n September 3, 2020, states: “Employer failed to keep accurate and complete time records for Complainant and Aggrieved Employees. (Lab. Code §§ 1174, 1198, 1199; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2 MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 012673.00026 - 3284061 A‘FFORNEYS AT LAW 5260 North Paim Avenue, Suite 400 SAGASER, WATKlNS & WiELAND PC Fresno. California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 \OOOflQUI-PUJN NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHp-nn-np-ap‘ ooflO‘er-PUJNHOOOOVQUIAUJNHO Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Evidence: 8, § 11040 subd. 7(A)(3) [‘every employer shall keep accurate information with respect to each employee including the following. . .time records showing when the empioyee begins and ends each work period.’].)” Evidence: Declaration of Phillip Boghosian in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment at ‘H 4; Ex. A (“PL’s LWDA Letter.”) at p. 5. 7. Walter Medrano’s June 5, 2019, Notice of Labor Code Violations - PAGA, to the LWDA (“Medrano’s LWDA Letter”) states: “Employer failed to keep accurate and complete time records for Complainant and Aggrieved Employees. (Lab. Code §§ 1174, 1198, 1199; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 7(A)(3) [‘every employer shall keep accurate information With respect t0 each employee including the following...time records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period.’].)” Evidence: Sagaser Decl. at 1] 5; Ex. C; Medrano’s LWDA Letter at 5. 8. Nicolette L. Lecy’s March 18, 2020 Notice of Labor Code Violations (“Lecy’s LWDA Letter”) states: “Employer failed to keep accurate and complete time records for Compiainant and Aggrieved Employees. (Lab. Code §§ 1174, 1198, 1199; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 7(A)(3) [‘every employer shall keep accurate information with respect t0 each employee including the following...time records showing When the employee begins and ends each work period.’].)” Evidence: Sagaser Decl. at 11 5; Ex. C; Lecy’s LWDA Letter at p. 4. 9. Jose A. Espinoza’s January 19, 2019 Notice of Labor Code Violations (“Espinoza’s LWDA Letter”) states: “Employer failed to keep accurate and complete time records for Complainant and Aggrieved Employees. (Lab. Code §§ 1174, 1198, 1199; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 7(A)(3) [‘every employer shall keep accurate information with respect to each employee inciuding the following...time 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 01267100026 - 328406J SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 400 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421~7000 \OWQONM-DLDN NNNNNNNNNHHHr-An-tu-nr-Ip-ny-ny-A WNQM-Ari-towooqoxmhwwwo Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Evidence: records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period.’].)” Evidence: Sagaser Decl. at fl 5; EX. C; Espinoza’s LWDA Letter at p. 4. 10. Jason Hogan’s May 31, 2019 Notice of Labor Code Violations (“Hogan’s LWDA Letter”) states: “Employer failed to keep accurate and complete time records for Complainant and Aggrieved Employees. (Lab. Code §§ 1174, 1198, 1199; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 7(A)(3) [‘every employer shall keep accurate information with respect to each employee including the following...time records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period.’].)” Evidence: Sagaser Decl. at 11 5; Ex. C; Hogan’s LWDA Letter at p. 3. 11. Frances Chen’s May 28, 2019 Notice of Labor Code Violations (“Chen’s LWDA Letter”) states: “Employer failed to keep accurate and complete time records for Complainant and Aggrieved Employees. (Lab. Code §§ 1174, 1198, 1199; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 7(A)(3) [‘every employer shall keep accurate information with respect to each employee including the following...time records showing When the employee begins and ends each work period.’].)” Evidence: Sagaser Decl. at '[I 5; Ex. C; Chen’s LWDA Letter at p. 5. 12. Marcus Wong’s May 28, 2019 Notice of Labor Code Violations (“Wong’s LWDA Letter”) states: “Employer failed to keep accurate and complete time records for Complainant and Aggrieved Employees. (Lab. Code §§ 1174, 1198, 1199; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 7(A)(3) [‘every employer shall keep accurate information with respect to each employee including the following...time records showing when the employee begins and ends each work period.’].)” Evidence: Sagaser Decl. at fl 5; Ex. C; Wong’s LWDA Letter at p. 5. 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 012673.00026 - 328406.} ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5260 North Pafm Avenue, Suite 400 SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC Fresno. California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 UJN \OOOflQUi-p 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Evidence: 13. Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice of Labor Code Violations states: “Complainant believes and asserts that Boghosian Raisin Packing Company, Inc. must be classified as joint employers of Complainant for purposes of liability for civil penalties under PAGA, as the aforementioned entities engaged, suffered, and permitted Complainant to perform services from which they benefited. . .” Evidence: P1.’s LWDA Letter at p. 3. 14. Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice of Labor Code Violations states: “Employer failed t0 pay Complainant and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked. (Lab. Code, § 1197; Armenta v. Osmose, Inc. (2005) 135 Ca1.App.4th 3 14, 324 Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p. 5. 15. Plaintiff answered “Yes” at her deposition to the question “So the only time that you weren’t paid for, that you are saying you should have been paid for, is when you clocked out when the machinery broke down; is that correct?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 67:7-10. 16. Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice states: “Employer failed to pay Complainant and Aggrieved Employees at least minimum wage for all hours worked or overtime rates for overtime work. (Lab. Code, §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1.)” Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p. 6. 17. Plaintiff answered “Correct” at her deposition to the question “If you worked more than eight hours, were you paid overtime at Boghosian?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 57:24-58:5. 18. Plaintiff answered “n0” at her deposition to the question “Did you ever tell anyone at Boghosian that you had worked hours that you weren’t being paid for?” 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 012673.00026 - 328406.} ATI'O RN EYS AT LAW 5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 400 SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 \OOOVQUI$UJN NNNNNNNNNr-tr-tp-In-IHr-ta-Ar-IHH WNQUI$WNHOKOOOQQUIADJNHO Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Evidence: Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 58:7-10. 19. Plaintiff‘s PAGA Notice states: “Employer faiied to pay Complainant and Aggrieved Employees overtime equal to one and one-half times their regular houriy rate of pay for each hour worked beyond eight (8) hours per workday and each hour worked beyond forty (40) hours per work week. (Lab. Code, §§ 510, 1198-1199; Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 3.” Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p. 6. 20. Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice states “Employer failed to pay Complainant and Aggrieved Employees overtime equal to double their regular hourly rate 0f pay for each hour worked beyond twelve (12) hours per workday and for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours on the seventh consecutive day 0r in a work week. (Lab. Code, §§ 510, 1198-1199; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 3.” Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p. 6. 21. Plaintiff’s specific causes of action in Plaintiffs’ Complaint d0 not assert doubIe-time violations. Evidence: Pls.’ Compl. at W 24~83. 22. Plaintiffs PAGA Notice states: “Employer failed to maintain a company meal period policy compliant with California law and failed t0 provide Complainant and other Aggrieved Employees with proper meal periods.” (Lab. Code, §§ 226.7, 512, subd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 11.” Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p. 6. 23. Plaintiff answered “Correct” at her deposition t0 the question “When you worked at Boghosian in 2019 and 2020, would you take a meal break?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 5222-532. 24. Piaintiff stated at her deposition that “No. There was never a time that I was not 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 01267300026 - 3284061 SAGASER, WATKINS & WlELAND PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5260 Norm Paim Avenue, Suite 400 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts Opposing Party’s ReSponse and and Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence: allowed t0 take a lunch break.” when asked “was there ever a time when you worked at Boghosian in 2019 0r 2020 that you were not allowed t0 take your lunch break?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 53:15-19. 25. Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice states: “Employer failed t0 record Complainant and Aggrieved Employees’ meal periods as required by Labor Code section 1198 and applicable IWC Wage Orders. (Lab. Code, § 1198; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 7(A)(3)[‘Mea1 periods, split shift intervals and total daily hours worked shall also be recorded.’].” Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p. 7. 26. Plaintiff stated at her deposition that “Oh. Oh. We were talking about the break. I did not punch out for the break, but I did punch out for lunch. I would punch out for one hour.” In response t0 the question “You didn’t go to the time clock and punch out for the time you took a meal break?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 53:10-1 1. 27. Plaintiff answered “Yes” at her deposition t0 the question: “And when you finished eating your lunch, would you clock back in?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 53:12-14. 28. Plaintiff stated in her deposition that when she clocked out when machinery broke down: “we were going to really quickly g0 and get some food 01‘ a juice and t0 tell the supervisor that we would return. But not all the time.” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 73:3-6. 29. Plaintiff answered “Yes.” at her deposition t0 the question: “You would leave and g0 and get drinks 0r food sometimes while you were waiting for the machinely correct?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 75:4-7. 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADIUDICATION 01267100026 - 3284061 SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC ATTORN EYS AT LAW 5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 400 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 \OOOQONUI-PUJN NNNNNNNNNr-Ir-kr-r-Ir-ln-trflr-Ip-tr-t OOQONUIADJNI-‘OOOOQONUIAUJNr-‘O Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Evidence: 30. Piaintiff answered “Sometimes” at her deposition to the question: “Did you see other people leaving to g0 get food or drinks when the machines were down?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 75 : 12-14. 31. Plaintiff answered, “I do not know” at her deposition to the question: “T0 your knowledge, was anyone ever disciplined for going t0 get food or drink While they were clocked out because the machines were down?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 75:15-20. 32. Plaintiff‘s PAGA Notice states: “Employer failed to maintain a company rest break policy compliant with California law and failed to provide Complainant and other Aggrieved Employees with proper rest breaks. (Lab. Code, § 226.7 (a); Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 12.” Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p. 7. 33. Plaintiffs PAGA Notice states: “Employer failed to properly compensate Complainant and Aggrieved Employees with an additional hour 0f premium pay for missed or improper rest breaks. (Lab. Code, § 226.7 (a); Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 11040 subd. 12.” Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p. 7. 34. Plaintiff answered, “10 minutes” at her deposition to the question “How Iong would your morning break last?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 5228-9. 35. Plaintiff answered, “No. I would receive my brea ” at her deposition to the question “Was there ever a day when you worked at Boghosian in 2019 or 2020 that you did not receive your morning break?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 52:10-13. 36. Plaintiff answered, “Yes” at her deposition to the question “And you were paid for the time that you took the morning and afternoon rest breaks, correct?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 67:1-5. 37. Plaintiffs PAGA Notice states: 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADIUDICATION 01267100026 - 3284061 SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5260 North Paim Avenue, Suite 400 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421«7000 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts Opposing Party’s Response and and Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence: “Employer failed t0 pay Complainant and Aggrieved Employees all wages earned by Complainant and Aggrieved Empioyees 0n at least semimonthly paydays.. (Lab. Code, §§ 204, subd. (a), 207.)” Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p. 7. 38. Plaintiff answered “no” at her deposition t0 the question “Did you ever tell anyone at Boghosian that you had worked hours that you weren’t being paid for?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 58:7-9. 39. Plaintiff answered “N0” at her deposition t0 the question “Did you ever complain t0 anyone at Boghosian that all the hours that you were there were not 0n your pay stub.” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 48:22-25. 40. Plaintiff answered “I don’t have the answer” at her deposition t0 the question “Did you ever discuss with anyone at Boghosian that you though your paycheck was incorrect.” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 48:6-10. 41. Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice states: “Employer refused t0 reimburse Complainant and Aggrieved Employees for all expenses incurred during the course and scope of their employment. (Lab. Code, § 2802.)” Evidence: (P173 LWDA Letter at p.8.) 42. Plaintiff answered “N0” at her deposition t0 the question “Did anyone at Boghosian tell you that it was a condition 0f your employment that you had t0 have a cellphone?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 45:25-4623. 43. Piaintiff answered “N0” at her deposition to the question “Did you ever ask anyone at Boghosian t0 pay you for your cell phone?” 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADIUDICATION 01267300026 - 3284061 SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC ATTORN EYS AT LAW 5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 400 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 \OOOQQUIAUJN NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONQUI-RWNF-‘OKOOOQQUIAUJNHO Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Evidence: Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 48:3-5. 44. On September 3, 2021, the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency responded to Boghosian’s Public Records request and provided PAGA Notice Letters made by Work Lawyers, PC. Evidence: Sagaser Decl.at 11 5; EX. C. 45. Plaintiff stated in her deposition that “My son pays my cell phone bill and so I don’t know about that bill because he pays it for me.” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 41 :23-25. 46. Plaintiff answered “No” at her deposition to the question “Did you receive any of your work instructions other than when to report t0 work from anyone at Boghosian by use of your cell phone?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 45 : 10-13. 47. Plaintiff answered, “I don’t know it” at her deposition to the question “You don’t know of anyone who was disciplined for not having a cell phone at Boghosian, correct?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 46:20-23. 48. Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice states: “Employer intentionally and willfully failed t0 provide proper and accurate wage statements to employees Complainant and Aggrieved Employees.” Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p. 7. 49. Plaintiff answered: “No” at her deposition to the question “Did you ever complain to anyone at Boghosian about your paycheck?” Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 47:22-48zl. 50. Plaintiff answered: “I don’t have the answer” at her deposition to the question “Did you ever discuss With anyone at Boghosian that you thought your paycheck was incorrect?” 10 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 01267300026 - 3284061 SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 400 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 MALAN \OOOQON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Evidence: Evidence: Pacheco Dep. at 48:6-1 0. 51. The section in Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice labeled “Legal Violations” is identical to the same section in Medrano, Lecy, Espinoza, Hogan, Chen, and Wong’s LWDA letters. Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p.5-8; Medrano’s LWDA Letter at p. 5-9; Lecy’s LWDA Letter at p. 3-6; Espinoza’s LWDA Letter at 4-7; Hogan’s LWDA Letter at p. 3-5; Chen’s LWDA Letter at p. 5-7; Wong’s LWDA Letter at p. 5-7. 52. Plaintiffs PAGA Notice and Medrano, Lecy, Espinoza, Hogan, Chen, and Wong’s LWDA letters all refer to the employee as “Complainant” and the employer as “Employer.” Evidence: Pl.’s LWDA Letter at p.1; Medrano’s LWDA Letter at p. 1; Lecy’s LWDA Letter at p. 1 ; Espinoza’s LWDA Letter at p. 1; Hogan’s LWDA Letter at p. 1; Chen’s LWDA Letter at p. 1 ; Wong’s LWDA Letter at p. 1. 53. Plaintiffs PAGA Notice Letter contains the same seventeen (17) bulleted violations in the same order as the Medrano, Lecy, Espinoza, Hogan, Chen, and Wong’s LWDA letters, which all refer to the employee as “Complainant” and the employer as “Employer.” Evidence: P1.’s LWDA Letter at p.7; Medrano’s LWDA Letter at p. 5-8; Lecy’s LWDA Letter at p. 4-6; Espinoza’s LWDA Letter at 4-7; Hogan’s LWDA Letter at p. 3-5; Chen’s LWDA Letter at p. 5-7; Wong’s LWDA Letter at p. 5-7. 54. The law firm Work Lawyers, PC filed Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice letter with the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency on September 3, 2020. Evidence: P1.’s LWDA Letter at p. 1. 55. Boghosian responded t0 Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice Letter in a letter to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency on 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADIUDICATION 01267100026 - 328406.! SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5260 North Palm Avenue. Suite 400 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence [\J Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Evidence: September 22, 2020. Evidence: Sagaser Decl.at 11 6; Ex. D. 56. Boghosian, through its counsel, stated in its response to Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice “With respect to the September 3, 2020 letter from Justin L0 of Work Lawyers PC, it appears to be a boilerplate letter that contains only legal conclusions and no factual statements. As such, it does not constitute a proper letter under Labor Code Section 2699.3.” \DOOQQUIAUJ Evidence: Sagaser Decl.at 11 6; Ex. D. 10 57. Plaintiff did not amend her PAGA Notice Letter. 11 12 Evidence: Sagaser Decl.at 11 7. 58. On July 7, 2021, Boghosian, through its 13 counsel, made a California Public Records Act request with the Department of Industrial 14 Relations for all notices filed by Work Lawyers, 1 5 PC since September 2017. 16 Evidence: Sagaser Decl.at 1] 4; Ex. B. 17 Dated: September l1, 2021 SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC 18 V , 19 /? , 12/ /A./Sagaser 20 S. Chapple Attorneys for Defendant, 21 Boghosian Raisin Packing Co., Inc. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION o 1267100026 - 323406.1 ATFORNEYS AT LAW 5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 400 SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND PC Fresno. California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 QQUI-PUJN OO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE (CODE CIV. PROC. § 1013A(3)) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO I am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party t0 the within action; my business address is 5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 400, Fresno, California 93704. On September I i , 2021, I served the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST M BY MAIL: I deposited such envelope in the mail at Fresno, California. The envelope(s) was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date 0f deposit for mailing an affidavit. D BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I sent such document(s) 0n September 14, 2021, by with postage thereon fully prepaid at Fresno, California. I] BY FAX: I sent such document by use of facsimile machine telephone number (559) 473-1483. Facsimile cover sheet and confirmation is attached hereto indicating the recipients” facsimile number and time of transmission pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 2.306. The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court Rule 2.301(3) and no error was reported by the machine. U BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I placed the above document in a sealed envelope. I caused said envelope t0 be handed to our messenger service to be delivered by hand to the above address(es). D BY EMAIL. I sent such document by use 0f email to the email address(es) above. (CCP § 1013(a)) Such document was scanned and emailed to such recipient and email confirmation is attached hereto indicating the recipients’ email address and time of receipt pursuant to CCP § 1013(a). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on September__I 4, 2021, at Fresno, California.94me hwn Ferreira PROOF OF SERVICE 012673.00026 - 328406.1 SAGASER, WATKINS & WlELAND PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 400 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 421-7000 WOOQO'xUl-hmwr-n NNNNNNNNNHr-tr-dr-tt-dr-tr-dr-p-nr- OOQQM-bWNfi-‘OWWNQKJIbWNHO SERVICE LIST Justin Lo Attorneys for Plaintiff Berkeh Alemzadeh Work Lawyers, PC 22939 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 202 Torrance, California 90505 Email: iustin@caworkiamer.com beyonca@cawork1awver.c0m Facsimile: (213) 784-0032 Kevin Mahoney Mahoney Law Group 249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite #814 Long Beach, California 90802 Email: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 Attorneys for Plaintiff PROOF OF SERVICE 01267100026 - 328406.!
