Notice Related Cases

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 24, 2021

CM-015 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY _Michae| S. Kun / Kevin D. Sullivan 208684 / 270343 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. E_F”_ED 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 . Los Angeles, CA 90067 g/Izqfofzg 2'th PM TELEPHONENO; (310) 556-8861 FAXNo. (optional).-(310) 553-2165 S er 9 CO” rt f CAUperlor 0U O ,E-MAIL ADDRESS(0ptiona/): mkun@ebg|aW.C0m / kSUIIivan@ebglaW.Com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defendant Aerotek, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: 191 North First Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose 951 13 BRANCH NAME: Old Courthouse County of Santa Clara 21 CV381 073 Reviewed By: A. Rodriguez CASE NUMBER: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Andres Sierra Suarez and Jorge Tores Salazar 21CV381073 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Veev Group, |nc., et al. JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hon. Socrates P. Manoukian DEPT.: NOTICE 0F RELATED CASE 20 Identify, in chronological order according to date of filing, all cases related to the case referenced above. 1. a. Title: Kevin Vasquez v. Veev Group, |nc., et al. b. Case number: MSCZO-O1379 c. Court: D same as above g other state or federal court (name and address): Contra Costa Sup. Ct., 725 Court St., Martinez 94553 d. Department: e. Casetype:D limited civilE unlimited civil D probate D familylaw D other (specify): f. Filing date: July 22, 2020 Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" D Yes E No h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply): g involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. E arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. D involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. g is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication ofjudicial resources if heard by differentjudges. g Additional explanation is attached in attachment 1h i. Status of case: g pending D dismissed D with D without prejudice D disposed of byjudgment 2. a. Title: b. Case number: c. Court: D same as above D other state or federal court (name and address): d. Department: Page 1 of 3 Form Approved for Optional Use Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300 Judicial Council of California NOTICE OF RELATED CASE www.couninfo.ca.gov CM-o15 [Rev. July 1, 2007] American LegaINet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com CM-015 PLAI DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Veev Group, |nc., et al. NTIFF/PETITIONER: Andres Sierra Suarez and Jorge Tores Salazar CASE NUMBER 21CV381073 2. (continued) e f. Q S" :tprhsvsz .Casetype: D limited civil D unlimited civil D probate D familylaw D other(specify): Filing date: . Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" D Yes D No . Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply): D involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. D arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. D involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. D is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication ofjudicial resources if heard by different judges. D Additional explanation is attached in attachment 2h Status of case: D pending D dismissed D with D without prejudice D disposed of by judgment Title: Case number: Court: D same as above D other state or federal court (name and address): Department: Case type: D limited civil D unlimited civil D probate D family law D other (specify): Filing date: Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" D Yes D No Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply): D involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. D arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. D involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. D is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. D Additional explanation is attached in attachment 3h Status of case: D pending D dismissed D with D withoutprejudice D disposed of by judgment 4.D Additional related cases are described in Attachment 4. Number of pages attached: Date: May 26, 2021 / Kevin D. Sullivan b (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) CM-o15[Rev. July1,2oo7] NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Pagezofa American LegalNet, Inc. www.Forms Workflow.com CM-015 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Veev Group, |nc., et al. | | | I : ' I CASE NUMBER:PLA NT FF/PET T ONER Andres Sierra Suarez and Jorge Tores Sa azar 21 CV381073 PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF RELATED CASE (NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Related Case ifyou are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service. The notice must be served on aII known parties in each related action or proceeding.) 1. | am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed In the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business address is (specify): | served a copy of the Notice of Related Case by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with first-class postage fully prepaid and (check one): a. D deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. b. D placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. The Notice of Related Case was mailed: a. on (date): b. from (city and state): 4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: D a. Name of person served: c. Name of person served: Street address: Street address: City: City: State and zip code: State and zip code: b. Name of person served: d. Name of person served: Street address: Street address: City: City: State and zip code: State and zip code: Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) CM-015 [Rev. July 1, 2007] NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Pageaofa American LegaINet, Inc. www.FormsWorkflow.com KOOONONUI-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONM-PWNHO ATTACHMENT 1h On July 22, 2020, Kevin Vasquez filed a proposed representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) in Contra Costa County Superior Court against, inter alia, Aerotek, Inc. and VeeV Group, Inc., alleging various wage and hour Violations. In his PAGA action, the Vasquez plaintiff seeks t0 represent all other Aerotek non-exempt employees who have been assigned t0 work at VeeV Group from May 18, 2019 t0 the present. On March 24, 2021, Plaintiffs Andres Sierra Suarez and Jorge Tores Salazar filed the instant proposed representative action under PAGA in this Court - also against Aerotek and VeeV Group. Like the plaintiff in Vasquez, Plaintiffs in the instant action also seek t0 represent all current and former non-exempt employees 0f Aerotek who have been assigned t0 work at VeeV Group, alleging most 0f the same wage and hour Violations that the Vasquez plaintiff has alleged in the first-filed action. Although not specified in their complaint, the furthest reach 0f the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs’ claims here is one year and 65 days. (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery C0. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824, 839 [confirming there is a one-year statute 0f limitations under PAGA]; Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (d) [allowing tolling for up t0 65 days while a plaintiff purports t0 exhaust his 0r her administrative remedies with the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”)].) Since Plaintiffs filed the instant action 0n March 24, 2021, and since Plaintiffs’ claims are limited to PAGA, the earliest reach is January 18, 2020. The earliest reach 0f the first-filed Vasquez action is May 18, 2019. Because the instant action and the Vasquez action are both brought 0n behalf 0f the same real party in interest - the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency - both actions purport t0 represent the same “plaintiffs” for purposes 0f Code 0f Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (c). Moreover, both actions seek t0 prosecute claims 0n behalf0fthe same individuals - i.e., Aerotek’s current and former California non-exempt employees who have been assigned t0 work at VeeV Group. The instant action, however, postdates the first-filed Vasquez action. Because the earlier-filed Vasquez action involves the “same parties” and the “same transaction” as the instant action pending before this Court, Aerotek will be bringing a demurrer 0r motion t0 stay the instant action until the first-filed Vasquez action is resolved. -4- Firm:53160729v1 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE KOOONONUI-hwwu-t NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH OONONM-PWNHOKOOONONM-PWNHO PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1. 2. 3. At the time 0f service Iwas at least 18 years 0f age and not a party t0 this legal action. My business address is 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90067. I served copies 0f the following documents (specz'fi/ the exact title ofeach document served): NOTICE OF RELATED CASE I served the documents listed above in item 3 0n the following persons at the addresses listed: Cody Payne Kim Nguyen PAYNE NGUYEN, LLP 4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 500 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 T: (310) 360-9882 | F: (310) 928-7469 cody@paynellp.com kim@paynellp.com Yvette Davis HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92614 T: 714.426.4600 | F: 714.754.0826 ydavis@hbblaw.com Tomas E. Margain, Esq. Huy Tran, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP 1550 The Alameda, Suite 302 San Jose, California 95 126 T: (408) 317-1 100 | F: (408) 351-0105 T0mas@jawlawgroup.com Huy@jawlawgroup.com Stephan R. Wattenberg, Esq. Claire E. Greene, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEPHAN R. WATTENBERG PO Box 657 Forest Ranch, CA 95942 T: (530) 342-8930 | F: (530) 342-5625 srwattny@pacbell.net celisagreene@gmail.com Attorneysfor KEVIN VASQUEZ in the Vasquez action Via File & ServeXpress Attorneysfor VEEV GROUP, INC. in the Vasquez action Via File & ServeXpress Attorneysfor Plaintififv ANDRES SIERRA SUAREZ andJORGE TORES SALAZAR in the instant Suarez action Via One Legal Attorneysfor Plaintiflfv ANDRES SIERRA SUAREZ andJORGE TORES SALAZAR in the instant Suarez action Via One Legal Firm:53 160729V1 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE \OOONO‘xUl-PUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-tt-tt-th-th-tt-tp-tp-tu-tu-t OONO‘xUl-PUJNHOKOOONO‘NUl-PUJNHO Molly L. Kaban, Esq. Attorneysfor Defendant HANSON BRIDGETT, LLP VEEV GROUP, INC. 425 Market Street) 26th Floor in the instant Suarez action San Francisco, CA 94105 T: (415) 995-5090 | F: (415) 995-3448 E: mkaban@hansonbridgett.com 5. a. EBy e-mail 0r electronic transmission. Based 0n an agreement 0f the parties t0 accept service by e-mail 0r electronic transmission, I caused the documents t0 be sent 0n the date shown below t0 the e-mail addresses 0f the persons listed in item 4 Via File & ServeXpress and One Legal. I did not receive Within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message 0r other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 6. I served the documents by the means described in item 5 on (date): May 26, 2021. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct. M2]- _Ingrid_Shin- DATE (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) Via One Legal ( GNATU OF DECLARANT) Firmz53 160729V1 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE