Mejia vs Merchants Building Maintenance LLC

Opposition Other

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 16, 2018

XR N N nn A Oo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 26 27 28 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672 SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104 JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, State Bar No. 280626 ALI S. CARLSEN, State Bar No. 289964 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Attorneys for Lorena Mejia ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Diego 04/09/2018 at 11:56:00 Au Clerk of the Superior Court By Katelin O'Keefe, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO LORENA MEJIA, in her representative capacity on behalf of all aggrieved employees in the State of California, Plaintiff, Vs. MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC, a California limited liability company; MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 37-2018-00002352-CU-OE-CTL PLAINTIFF LORENA MEJIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MERCHANT BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC AND MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO STAY THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS Date: April 20,2018 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: C-73 1 PLAINTIFF LORENA MEJIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MERCHANT BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC AND B O W MN Oo c e 1 S Y Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L INTRODUCTION Defendants Merchant Building Maintenance, LL.C’s and Merchant Building Maintenance Company’s (collectively “Defendants™) Motion to Stay should be denied because the standard to establish exclusive concurrent jurisdiction has not been met. Two or more superior courts do not have jurisdiction over “all of the parties involved in litigation.” First, the parties in each case are distinct. Not all of the actions name defendant Merchants Building Maintenance Company. Additionally, Ms. Mejia is the sole named plaintiff in the instant action, and she is not a plaintiff in the other actions that Defendants reference in their motion. Although two of the actions referenced in Defendants’ Motion are alleged as class actions, neither actions have certified classes, therefore Plaintiff is not a party to those cases. Second, as Defendants readily admit, “[p]riority of jurisdiction resides in the tribunal where process is first served.” California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co., 105 Cal. App. 3d 104, 109 (1980). As this instant action is the earliest-filed PAGA action alleging meal and rest period violations, and the earliest-filed, non-stayed PAGA action, this Court should have priority of jurisdiction over the claims and parties. Third, given that the instant action is uniquely positioned to proceed immediately and recover for a larger group of aggrieved employees than the other pending PAGA claims, a stay in this matter will only frustrate the interests of justice as it hinders the prosecution of an otherwise meritorious lawsuit brought on behalf of the State. See Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 548 (2017). For the above reasons, and those set forth more fully herein, the Court should deny Defendants’ Motion. IL. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendants seek to stay this action, on the grounds that there are presently other representative and class actions currently pending against it asserting similar claims. Those actions are (in order of date of filing): o Hector Antuna v. Merchants Building Maintenance LLC, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC637782 (hereinafter the “Anfuna Action”), filed on 10/28/2016. See Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice Filed Concurrently with her 2 PLAINTIFF LORENA MEJIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MERCHANT BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC AND N 0 0 N Y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Opposition to Defendants’ Demurrer (“PRIN™), Ex. 1. A First Amended Complaint was filed, adding a claim for PAGA penalties, on April 20, 2017. See Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice Filed in Support of Demurrer (“DRIN”), Ex. A; » Mynor Boch v. Merchants Building Maintenance LLC, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC681320 (herein after the “Boch Class Action”), filed on 10/27/2017. See DRIN, Ex. B; e Mario Hernandez v. Merchants Building Maintenance, LLC, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC690688 (hereinafter the “Hernandez Class Action”), filed on 1/24/2018. See DRIN, Ex. C; and e Mynor Boch v. Merchants Building Maintenance, LLC, et al., Loos Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC695882 (hereinafter the “Boch PAGA Action”), filed on February 28, 2018. See DRIN, Ex. D; (the Antuna Action, Boch Class Action, Hernandez Class Action, and Boch PAGA Action collectively referred to as the “MBM Actions”). As set forth herein, this case does not meet the factors required for staying this case on the grounds of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, nor would the interests of justice be served in staying this case. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Defendants Fail to Establish Concurrent Exclusive Jurisdiction Exists to Stay The Instant Action Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, “when two superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved in litigation, the first to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved until such time as all necessary related matters have been resolved.” Plant insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp., 224 Cal. App.3d 781, 787 (1990). While concurrent exclusive jurisdiction does not require absolute identity of the parties, the court exercising original jurisdiction must have the power to bring before it all necessary parties. Id. at 788. Defendants argue that a stay of this case is mandatory under the doctrine of exclusive 3 PLAINTIFF LORENA MEJIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MERCHANT BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC AND AAD ATTARUTC MNYTIT PIRI AFA TRPPTAT ARIAT AAR AD ARTLZIO RANTTIARNT TA OT AY o e 3 ON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 concurrent jurisdiction because there are other pending PAGA matters against it. However, as Defendants readily admit, “[p]riority of jurisdiction resides in the tribunal where process is first served.” California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co., 105 Cal. App. 3d 104, 109 (1980). The parties in the instant case are distinct from those involved in the other actions. In the instant case, Plaintiff names both MBM LLC and MBM Co. as defendants. Neither the Boch Class Action, the Hernandez Class Action, nor the Boch PAGA Action name MBM Co. as a defendant. Further, Ms. Mejia is the sole named plaintiff in the instant action, and she is not a plaintiff in the MBM Actions. Although the Hernandez Class Action and the Boch Class Action are alleged as class actions, neither action have certified classes, therefore Plaintiff is not a party to those cases. Additionally, in connection with a Joint Status Conference Statement filed in the Bock Class Action, MBM LLC has already represented to the Los Angeles County Superior Court that it believes that “any potential class should be limited to the MBM [LLC] employees employed at [Lowes Santa Monica Hotel]...” See PRIN, Ex. 2, at 3:20-23. As Plaintiff did not work at the Lowes Santa Monica Hotel, Plaintiff would not be part of that class. Indeed, the Court of Appeal has cautioned against making assumptions related to class certification in the early stages of litigation. As explained in Lee v. Southern California University for Professional Studies, 148 Cal. App. 4th 782 (2007), the court stated: [The plaintiff] has not, as of yet brought a motion to certify any class. It is quite possible that when she does so, she will seek to narrow the definition of the class ... She is certainly entitled to do that ... It is possible (and this court takes no position on this) that however [the plaintiff] defines the class, any motion for certification will be denied for other reasons. We cannot know this, of course, because there has, as of yet, been no such motion ... Id. at 786. Thus, the purpose of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, which is to avoid inconsistent rulings and duplicative damages, is not violated as there is no such risk without class certification approval by one of the courts. Defendants argue that the parties in the instant action and those in the Anfuna Action, the Hernandez Class Action, the Boch Class Action, and the Boch PAGA Action are the same because Plaintiff “seeks to represent the same legal rights and interests as that already represented by 4 PLAINTIFF LORENA MEJIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MERCHANT BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC AND OO 0 N N S N wn RAR W N N O N O N N N N N N N m m e m e m e e e e e e e d pe e m c o ~~ O N hh Rh W N = O N O N N R W W N D = O [plaintiffs] Antuna, Hernandez and Boch”. See Motion at 9:18-19. This is not wholly accurate. As shown by the chart below, the instant action (“Mejia”) is in-fact the earliest-filed PAGA action for many of the claims against Defendants, and thus, the instant case would encompass a broader range of aggrieved employees: 5 .. Antuna Boch Class Hernandez Boch PAGA Claims Mejia Action Action Class Action Action Filed Date: 1/16/2018 10/28/2016 10/27/2017 1/24/2018 2/28/2018 Yes, but Yes, but Defendants Defendants No, ordered . 5 oe : ig Class o wo claim plaintiff | claim plaintiff \ No. to individual . . No. Allegations? ep signed an signed an arbitration’. Lo , Lo. arbitration arbitration PAGA Claim? Yes, HS, bir stayed”. Defendants’ claim itis Mini based on mmm Yes. Yes. Santa Monica Yes. Yes. Wage hotel minimum wage | ordinance’. | Meal Period SE Bane Violation Yes. - 3 ib Yes. Yes, but limited to Rest Period shifts 3.5 Violation tes, Yes. hours to 4 Yes. hours in length®. I See DRIN, Ex. E at 2:6-8. 2 See DRIN, Ex. E at 2:21-22. 3 See DRIN, Ex. E at 3:6-7. 4 See DRIN, Ex. E at 2:6-8. 5 See PRIN, Ex. 2 at 3:18-20. 6 See DRIC, Ex. C at § 25.A. 5 PLAINTIFF LORENA MEIJIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MERCHANT BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC AND ARAT'N ATT ANITO DIT MIRNA RA ANITA TARTAT ANA SAN ANIC AM ANTINANT TNA OT ANT wn RA L N NO 0 Na 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants will argue that the Antuna Action seeks PAGA penalties for a potentially longer period, and thus, represents the greater range of aggrieved employees. However, plaintiff Antuna does not seek penalties for meal and rest period premiums. Moreover, the Anfuna Action has been stayed pending arbitration, thus, there is no risk of inconsistent rulings or results. Defendants also attempt to allege that the Hernandez Class Action will overlap with the instant action. However, the Hernandez Class Action contains no PAGA claim and does not purport to recover for meal period violations. See DRIN, Ex. C. Further, the stated scope of the rest break claim in the Hernandez Class Action is only for shifts from 3.5 hours to 4 hours in length. See DRIN, Ex. C at §25.A. Thus, while Defendants allege that plaintiff Hernandez will seek to amend his complaint to add a claim for PAGA, his PAGA claims will be almost entirely subsumed by the instant, earlier-filed action. | Finally, Defendants may attempt to argue that the Boch PAGA Action is earlier-filed because the related Boch Class Action was filed before the instant action. However, the PAGA period in the Boch PAGA Action shorter than the instant case, thereby allowing Plaintiff to recover on behalf of more aggrieved employees. See DRIN, Ex. D at 9 7; contra Plaintiff Mejia’s Complaint at § 31. Additionally, Defendants have indicated their intention to compel arbitration in the Hernandez Class Action and the Boch Class Action which, if granted, will result in a stay of the Boch PAGA Action and any eventual PAGA claim brought by plaintiff Hernandez. B. The Court Should Not Exercise Its Discretion to Stay the Instant Matter While this Court has the power to regulate the proceedings before it, it should not do so because a stay in this matter will only prejudice Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees she seeks to represent. Defendants assert that a stay is necessary to prevent re-litigation of matters already at issue “in the Los Angeles actions and for which the resolution of those matters may have either res judicata or collateral estoppel effect on many of the issues in the present action.” See Motion, at 10:25-28. Defendants’ argument is without merit because Plaintiff’s claims are the earliest-filed PAGA claim for meal and rest break violations, and the earliest, non-stayed PAGA claim seeking penalties for unpaid wages. If anything, the instant case and the MBM Actions could be coordinated. The Legislature enacted PAGA to expand “the universe of those who might enforce the law, 6 PLAINTIFF LORENA MEJIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MERCHANT BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC AND W N Oo 0 O N Wn 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and the sanctions violators might be subject to...to remediate present violations and deter future ones.” Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 548 (2017) (emphasis added). The California Supreme Court went on to note “[h]urdles that impede the effective prosecution of representative PAGA actions undermine the Legislature’s objectives.” Id. at ¥23. Given that the instant action has the longer PAGA period for meal and rest break violations, and is the earliest-filed, non-stayed PAGA claim against Defendants, a stay in this action would eviscerate the purpose of PAGA, frustrate the interests of justice and hinder the prosecution of an otherwise meritorious PAGA action. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court should deny Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Instant Proceedings. Dated: April 9, 2018 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC wo [J Ali S. Carlsen Ys for Plaintiff 7 PLAINTIFF LORENA MEJIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MERCHANT BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC AND RACMIATTANITS MTT NIRS AAA TRITTRT ARNTAT AAR AT ANIC A ANTTIARNT TA COT ANT OO o e 1 O N Ln B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to 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 April 9, 2018, I served the foregoing document entitled ¢ PLAINTIFF LORENA MEJIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MERCHANT BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC AND MERCHANTS BUILDING Tis COMPANY’S MOTION TO STAY THE INSTANT on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by placing [1] the original [X] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Elaine M. Vukadinovich MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP One Wilshire Building 624 S. Grand Ave, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 e.vukadinovick@mpglaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: Merchants Building Maintenance LLC and Merchants Building Maintenance Company. [] (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 on 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 or 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(c).) X (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Aegis Law Firm PC for collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery, and I caused such document(s) described herein to be deposited for delivery to a facility regularly maintained Federal Express for overnight delivery. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(c); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) [1 (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused said document(s) to 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).) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 9, 2018, at Irvine, California. Ht SQ Grethel Gonzalez 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE