DeclarationCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 24, 202110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 CV381073 Santa Clara - Civil HANSON BRIDGETT LLP MOLLY L. KABAN, SBN 232477 mkaban@hansonbridgett.com AMANDA M. OSOWSKI, SBN 317843 aosowski@hansonbridgett.com 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 Attorneys for Defendants VEEV GROUP, INC., SETT, LLC, and AMY BOORAS Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 6/1 5/2021 4:29 PM Reviewed By: L. Wang Case #21 CV381 073 Envelope: 6654949 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ANDRES SIERRA SUAREZ AND JORGE TORES SALAZAR, Plaintiffs, V. VEEV GROUP, INC.; SETT, LLC; AEROTEK, INC; AMY BOORAS AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants. Case N0. 2 1CV38 1 073 DECLARATION OF AMANDA M. OSOWSKI RE: AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS VEEV GROUP, INC., SETT, LLC, AND AMY BOORAS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Action Filed: March 26, 2021 -1- L. Wa DECLARATION OF AMANDA M. OSOWSKI RE: AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF AMANDA M. OSOWSKI I, Amanda M. Osowski, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly admitted t0 practice before this Court. I am an associate with Hanson Bridgett LLP, attorneys 0f record for Defendant VeeV Group, Inc., Sett, LLC, and Amy Booras. Ihave personal knowledge 0f the facts set forth herein, except as t0 those stated on information and belief and, as t0 those, I am informed and believe them to be true. If called as a Witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein. 2. On May 28, 2021, I emailed to Plaintiff‘s counsel 0f record, Tomas Margain, pursuant t0 Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.41 regarding an anticipated demurrer or motion to stay and requesting an additional 15 day extension t0 meet and confer. On May 28, Mr. Margain responded that he would agree t0 the extension because the Parties would need additional time to meet and confer. (See email correspondence attached hereto as Exhibit A). 3. Defendants are 0n notice that co-Defendant, Aerotek, Inc., anticipates demurring on the same or similar grounds. Accordingly, Defendants have collectively agreed t0 meet and confer With Plaintiffs counsel jointly. 4. T0 date, the Parties have been unable, despite good faith attempts, to schedule a joint meet and confer regarding Defendants' anticipated demurrer(s). The Parties continue to actively confer regarding scheduling and currently anticipate being able to meet and confer regarding the anticipated demurrer(s) later this week. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 0n this 15th day 0f June, 2021, at Larkspur, California. Amanda M. Osowski -2- DECLARATION OF AMANDA M. OSOWSKI RE: AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF‘S COMPLAINT EXHIBIT A From: Tomas Margain Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:48 PM To: Molly L. Kaban Cc: Tomas Margain; Amanda M. Osowski; Steve W; Claire Greene; Huy@JAWLawGroup.com Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for extension to respond to Complaint and meet and confer (Suarez/Salazar PAGA Complaint) I received a response that they had not been engaged t0 handle the arbitrations. I am meeting With a JAMS case coordinator, will probably try one last time to get a response, and then file petitions t0 compel. Warm regards, Tomas Tomas E. Margain Attorney at Law E ****************** Justice at Work Law Group 1550 The Alameda, Suite 302 San Jose, California 95126 Telephone: 408.317.1100 | Facsimile: 408.351 .0105 tomas@iawlaw2roup.com | www.jawlawgroup.com NOTICE: The information contained in this email message is confidential and may also contain privileged attorney-client information or work product. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To comply with U.S. Treasury regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person (i) for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any matter addressed herein. Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary 1‘s included in this message. On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:42 PM Molly L. Kaban wrote: Tomas, Thank you for your professional courtesy on the extension. | believe I told you Michael Kun is representing Aerotek. Have you had trouble contacting them? Molly Kaban From: Tomas Margain Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:37 PM To: Amanda M. Osowski ; Steve W ; Claire Greene Cc: Tomas Margain ; Huy@JAWLawGroup.com; Molly L. Kaban Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for extension to respond to Complaint and meet and confer (Suarez/Salazar PAGA Complaint) Amanda: Given that we d0 need to meet and confer 0n this issue, you can have the extension. However, we have several arbitrations filed with JAMS as against Aerotek and have gotten zero response. We are needlessly incurring fees on these procedural issues and in some cases we are at teh point of drafting and filing a petition to comel. If your firm will not be representing Aerotek in arbitration, please tell us who is so we can put them 0n Notice prior to filing the petition to compel. Warm regards, Tomas Tomas E. Margain Attorney at Law Justice at Work Law Group 1550 The Alameda, Suite 302 San Jose, California 95126 Telephone: 408.317.1100 | Facsimile: 408.351.0105 tomas@jawlaw2roup.com | www.jawlawgroup.com NOTICE: The information contained in this email message 1's confidential and may also contain privileged attorney-client information or work product. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To comply with U.S. Treasury regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person (i) for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any matter addressed herein. Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:01 PM Amanda M. Osowski wrote: Good afternoon Counsel, We write to request that Plaintiffs stipulate t0 a 15-day extension on the time to respond to the Complaint. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1 10(d).) Our current deadline is June 3. However, we believe that the Parties would benefit from additional time t0 fully discuss the issues raised in the attached letter from Aerotek counsel. Specifically, it appears that there is a duplicative PAGA case which has been filed against Defendants (attached). A party may demur 0n the grounds that “[t]here is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause 0f action.” (Code CiV. Proc., § 430. 10, subd. (0).) The pendency 0f another action growing out of the same transaction is a ground for abatement of the second action. (California Union Ins. C0. v. Trinity River Land C0. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104, 108-109.). Please confirm that you are amenable t0 the extension and provide available dates t0 meet and confer regarding the above issue. Thank you for your professional courtesy, Amanda M. Osowski Amanda M. Osowski Attorney Hanson Bridgett LLP (415) 995-5862 Direct (415) 995-3444 Fax AOsowski@hansonbridgett.com 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 San Francisco | Sacramento | North Bay | East Bay | Los Angeles 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Suarez, et al. v. Veev Group, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case N0. 21CV381073) At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County 0f Contra Costa, State of California. My business address is 1676 N. California B1Vd., Suite 620, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. On June 15, 2021, I served a true copy 0f the following document described as: DECLARATION OF AMANDA M. OSOWSKI RE: AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS VEEV GROUP, INC., SETT, LLC, AND AMY BOORAS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 0n the interested parties in this action as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based 0n an agreement 0f the parties t0 accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document t0 be sent from e-mail address vcarter@hansonbridgett.com t0 the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 15, 2021, at Goldsboro, North Carolina. WW2 Venisa C. Carter DECLARATION OF AMANDA M. OSOWSKI RE: AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF‘S COMPLAINT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Suarez, et al. v. Veev Group, et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case N0. 21CV381073) Tomas E. Margain, Esq. Huy Tran, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP, LLP 1550 The Alameda, Suite 302 San Jose, CA 95126 Email: T0mas(aDJAWLaWGroup.com HuV@JAWLaWGr0uD.com Stephan R. Wattenberg, Esq. Claire E. Greene, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEPHAN R. WATTENBERG P.O. Box 657 Forest Ranch, CA 95942 Email: srwattnv@pacbell.net cegattv@law4u.comcastbiznet Michael S. Kun, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER GREEN 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506 Email: MKun@ebglaw.com (Attorneysfor Plaintiff? ANDRES SIERRA SUAREZ andJORGE TORES SALAZAR) (Attomeysfor Plaintiffs ANDRES SIERRA SUAREZ andJORGE TORES SALAZAR) (Attorneysfor Defendant AEROTEK, INC.) DECLARATION OF AMANDA M. OSOWSKI RE: AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF‘S COMPLAINT
