Excerpt: ...ns in response to interrogatories, the party opposing discovery has an obligation to supply the basis…”.]; CCP § 2030.230 [responding party may “specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.”].) RP argues that...

Excerpt: ...e § 1786]), the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA” [Civ. Code § 1785]), and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Through today's motion, Accurate seeks an order sustaining its demurrer on the grounds the SAC fails to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) Defendant's Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED in part. Defendant's counsel provides evidence of a meet an...

Excerpt: ...before accepting or rejecting the referee's recommendations.” (Rockwell International Corp. v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1269.) Although the trial court must independently consider the referee's findings before acting, the referee's recommendations are entitled to “great weight.” Estate of Beard (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 753, 777. Here, the parties were referred to discovery referee, Daniel B. Garrie, “to decide all issues ar...

Excerpt: ...06537–43 and AEILIC 006554–55. As explained in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4 th 1273, Court's ordinarily seal “matters relating to the business operations of defendant” where “public revelation of these matters would interfere with its ability to effectively compete in the marketplace” or “there is a substantial probability that their revelation would prejudice the…legitimate interest of defen...

Excerpt: ...e the substance of the parties' settlement. The task of the trial court is to review and approve the settlement, making sure it is fair to both the LWDA, as well as the employees (all of them, not just the named Plaintiff) subjected to one or more of the alleged Labor Code violations. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.) Although the test for fairness is not well-defined, courts generally look to whether the settlement is genui...

Excerpt: ...nique information regarding the underlying case and because the City has failed to exhaust less intrusive means of discovery. In opposition, WCA seeks a protective order. Both motions are DENIED without prejudice. The general rule is that parties are entitled to depose “any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association...

Excerpt: ...ould be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government." (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986; accord Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 381). Accordingly, the trial court must “review and approve” a PAGA settlement. (Labor Code §2699(l)(2)). As the California Supreme Court explained: “PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negotiated...

Excerpt: ...��56, AEILIC 004587–90, and AEILIC 006852–59. As explained in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4 th 1273, Court's ordinarily seal “matters relating to the business operations of defendant” where “public revelation of these matters would interfere with its ability to effectively compete in the marketplace” or “there is a substantial probability that their revelation would prejudice the…legitimate in...

Excerpt: ...) to seal many of the same documents, the Court has ordered the following documents sealed: AEILIC 004526–27, AEILIC 004538–42, AEILIC 004545–49, AEILIC 004552–56, AEILIC 004587–90, and AEILIC 006852–59. Accordingly, to the extent Defendant Tucker Advisory Group, Inc. and specially appearing Defendant Karlan K. Tucker's motion requests sealing of those same documents, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. As to the remaining two documents, AE...

Excerpt: ...sts: $12,000; Enhancement: $5,000; Administration: $20,000; LWDA: $56,250. Having reviewed the proposed Settlement Agreement, the proposed Notice and the accompanying papers, the Court has the following concerns: 1. The notice of motion (ROA 169) contains the name of the wrong court. 2. The Settlement provides the Settlement Administrator is the final arbiter of disputes regarding “Dancer Days.” (JS ¶ 39(e)(8).) The Settlement should be revi...

Excerpt: ...ed to resolve for a gross settlement amount of $1,500,000 (GSA). From there, counsel proposes the following deductions/allocations: Attorney Fees: $500,000 (1/3 of the GSA) Litigation Costs: $40,000 Plaintiff Enhancement: $30,000 total ($10,000 x 3) Admin. Costs: $45,000.00 LWDA share of PAGA: $15,000 Class size: California Class: 7,844; FCRA Class: 50 Class tax allocations: 25% W-2; 75% 1099 Uncashed checks: State Controller Based upon the above...

Excerpt: ...ptember 17, 2021. (ROA No. 84). Having reviewed the above referenced document and the Revised Agreement attached thereto, the Court has the following concerns: 1. Plaintiff has indicated an intent to dismiss the individual Defendants from this action. (¶3(i) of Supplemental Del Castillo Declaration). Plaintiff should file her Request for Dismissal, to permit this action to be fully resolved. 2. The Court notes that the Release has been amended; ...

Excerpt: .../21, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel compliance. In addition, the Court ordered the parties to (1) meet and confer within 7 days and agree on a new Belaire notice to be disseminated immediately, OR (2) agree on a discovery referee, or at least a short list of three for this Court to select from. The issue of sanctions was not ruled upon at that time, pending the outcome of the parties meet and confer efforts or a...

Excerpt: ...has been made, the court determines whether the opposing party has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88. Step One: Protected Speech? Yes. “At the first step, the moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them. When relief is sought based on allegations of both protected and unprotected activity, th...

Excerpt: ...nerally understands the PAGA analysis provided and would not question a set-aside of $10,000 for the PAGA cause of action, if counsel made it clear that every class member is also an aggrieved employee, and vice versa, such that everyone taking part in the settlement shares equally. That means the PAGA portion to aggrieved employees pours into the net settlement amount, which is then distributed to all class members and not just certain ones. Bec...

Excerpt: ...ons commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the attorney's negligence.” (Kumaraperu v. Feldsted (2015) 237 Cal.App.4 th 60, 66). “A plaintiff seeking to recover such damages must allege a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and the injury.” (Id. at 66). “Where the pleaded facts ...

Excerpt: ...FAC pleads in conclusory fashion that he was an employee at the time of his interviews. Conclusory allegations are permitted if they are supported by other factual allegations in the complaint. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.) However, Defendants contend that this conclusion is not supported by any other factual allegation in the FAC. The Court finds that the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 7, 8, 14-21 of the FAC are su...

Excerpt: ...vice of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” or “the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (C.C.P. §2030.300(c)). The statutes outlining the time requirements for filing a Motion to Compel Further Responses are “mandatory and the court may not ...

Excerpt: ...tinue to employ a worker known to be ineligible (8 U.S.C. §1324a(a)(2)), any state law award that compensates an unauthorized alien worker for loss of employment during the post-discovery period directly conflicts with the federal immigration law prohibition against continuing to employ workers whom the employer knows are unauthorized aliens.” (Id. at 424). “Such an award would impose liability on the employer for not performing an act (cont...

Excerpt: ...Los Alamitos Medical Center, Inc.; and (3) Defendants' motion for protective order. Plaintiff's two motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, respectively, are CONTINUED to 1/21/22 at 9:30 a.m. in this department. Defendants' Motion for Protective Order actually consists of a motion for protective order relating to twenty-nine different sets of discovery relating to discovery served by...

Excerpt: ...the collection of fees and actual calendaring of the Motion for Joinder. Consequently, although Counsel obtained a Reservation Number prior to filing the Notice, the means by which the Joinder was filed did not, in actuality, use the Reservation Number and the Motion was not appropriately scheduled for hearing. Until and unless the Joinder is appropriately filed and calendared, the Court declines to rule on it. Motion for Summary Judgment or Summ...

Excerpt: ...ees, Cheryl Dyas and Heather Campbell, on the basis that they are apex employees with no personal information regarding the underlying case. Ms. Dyas An an initial matter, WCA contends that it is not seeking to depose Ms. Dyas at this time. Nevertheless, the City still seeks a protective order as to her deposition in addition to Ms. Campbell. However, since WCA is no longer seeking to depose Ms. Dyas at this time, the motion is DENIED as MOOT as ...

Excerpt: ...ement. At the last hearing on 6/11/21, the Court raised numerous concerns. (ROA 144.) In an effort to respond to these concerns, on 8/10/21, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Submission; Revised [Proposed] Order (Includes a Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint); and Declaration of Ali S. Carlsen. The Carlsen Declaration also includes both the redlined version and clean version of the Amended Stipulation (Exs. 1 & 3); as well as both the redlined versi...

Excerpt: ...to have been entered. (ROA No. 97). Consequently, the claims technically remain. Nonetheless, given Plaintiffs concession these individuals cannot state a claim under PAGA, the portion of the Demurrer directed towards these Plaintiffs is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. With respect to Plaintiffs Kristine Michel and Tiffany Indrawan, Plaintiff asserts that timely notice to the LWDA has now been provided, as of June 23, 2021. (Opposition: 5:18-2...

Excerpt: ...ties propose to settle this case for $150,000.00, with the following deductions and allocations: Attorney Fees: $50,000.00 Litigation Costs: $ 6,000.00 Administrative Costs: $ 6,750.00 Representative Cost: $ 2,500.00 Labor Department: $11,250.00 This results in a net of $74,500.00 to the class of 100 members (assuming every class member is treated as an aggrieved employee, and vice versa). Plaintiff proposes to treat each distribution as 40% wage...

Excerpt: ...d by a judgment in an action brought by the government." (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986; See also Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 381). Accordingly, the trial court must “review and approve” a PAGA settlement. (Labor Code §2699(l)(2)). As the California Supreme Court explained: “PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negotiated resolutio...

Excerpt: ...o would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government." (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986; See also Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 381). Accordingly, the trial court must “review and approve” a PAGA settlement. (Labor Code §2699(l)(2)). As the California Supreme Court explained: “PAGA settlements are subject to trial court review and approval, ensuring that any negot...

Excerpt: ... the remainder of this action shall be stayed, pending arbitration. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4 th 348, 364; See also C.C.P. §1281.4 and 9 U.S.C. §3). “[T]he general rule is ‘one must be a party to an arbitration agreement to be bound by it or invoke it.” (Garcia v. Pexco, LLC (2017) 11 Cal.App.5 th 782, 785). However, “[c]ourts recognize exceptions to the general rule which allow nonsignatories to c...

Excerpt: ... 569). Here, while Surf Lagoons is identified as a cross-complainant on the caption of the 4AXC, Surf Lagoons is not identified as a cross-complainant anywhere in the body of the 4AXC. (See FAXC, at ¶¶1-7 “Parties”.) Even the charging allegations in the 2 nd COA do not indicate Surf Lagoons is cross-complainant despite alleging Surf Lagoons entered into a contract with AWM. (See FAXC, at ¶36.) As such, on its face, Surf Lagoons is not a pa...

Excerpt: ... deductions/allocations: Attorney Fees: $33,333.33 Litigation Costs: $12,000.00 Plaintiff Enhancement: $5,000.00 Admin. Costs: $5,000.00 LWDA: $3,750.00 Class size: 95 Net to employees: $40,916.67 Class tax allocations: 20% W-2; 80% 1099 Provisional Certification of the Class After parties to a putative class action settle the dispute, they must present that settlement to the trial court for approval. If the class has not yet been certified, part...

Excerpt: ...val of a PAGA settlement. The gross settlement amount (“GSA”) is $575,000.00, which is intended to cover approximately 2,115 non-exempt hourly employees suffering one of many wage/hour violations sometime between 11/22/13 and 08/01/18. This is a non-reversionary settlement. The proposed deductions/allocations from the GSA are as follows: Attorney Fees: $191,666.00 Litigation Costs: $20,000.00 Administrator Costs: $19,500.00 Service Enhancemen...

Excerpt: ...For sake of ease, but with no intention to foretell a legal conclusion, the three individuals and two entities will at times be collectively referred to as the “Township Defendants.” These defendants supplied individuals to work at The Resort at Pelican Hill (hereinafter “Resort”). One such individual was plaintiff herein. Plaintiff began working for the Township Defendants (more precisely Township Building Services) as an office coordina...

Excerpt: ...oughout California, and any number of additional “job sites” where its workers might be called to action. Defendant regularly employs thousands of non-exempt hourly laborers and has an estimated 9,000 workers who might qualify as class members. Plaintiff Sanchez was employed by Defendant on and off for about fifteen (15) years, from approximately 2000 to 2015. He was employed in the “underground division” as a construction laborer in an h...

Excerpt: ...nty, Rosser's professional services fell below the standard of care, leading to costly delays in approvals and bidding. According to the County, the project has never been completed and Rosser recently walked off the job, citing financial collapse. On 07/12/19, County filed suit against Rosser for negligence, breach of contract and declaratory relief. Rosser responded with an answer, and a cross-complaint against these demurring parties among oth...

Excerpt: ...ange County. Two months later, plaintiff Fuentes commenced a class action suit in federal district court, basically asserting the same types of claims. Plaintiff Johnson was added as a named representative in the federal action. All of the representative plaintiffs came together for a global settlement, and in so doing agreed that the most efficient way to resolve the litigation was to bring all the actions to this Court. The resulting settlement...

Excerpt: ...of care, leading to costly delays in approvals and bidding. According to the County, the project has never been completed and Rosser recently walked off the job, citing financial collapse. On 07/12/19, County filed suit against Rosser for negligence, breach of contract and declaratory relief. Rosser responded with an answer, and a cross-complaint Cini-Little and others. Rosser also led a motion to transfer venue here to OC, which was granted. On ...

Excerpt: ...tuated that any judgment rendered in his absence “may as a practical matter impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest.” CCP § 387(b). The party claiming a right to intervene must show an interest in the “property or transaction” that is the subject of the litigation, that would be substantially prejudiced by any judgment rendered in his or her absence. Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Develop., Inc. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4 th 540,...

Excerpt: ...rnate capacity as cross-complainant caused to be filed a motion to compel further responses to “Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 6, 8-11, 15, 17-22, 26-31, 35-45, and 48-49.” Both the memorandum and the separate statement directly addressed SRog No. 19. Timely opposition and reply papers were filed in relation thereto. The motion was originally scheduled to be heard 10/11/19 but was continued out a few weeks. On 12/13/19, Hon. Sanders r...

Excerpt: ... contract based on the Non-Disclosure Agreement between DWB and Surf Paradiso. 4AXC, Ex. A. Whether it is written, oral, or implied, the elements for breach of contract are: (1) parties capable of contracting, (2) mutual consent, (3) a lawful object, (4) sufficient cause or consideration, (5) plaintiff's performance or excuse for failure to perform, (6) defendant's breach, and (7) damage. Civil Code §§ 1550, 1605; Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Top...

Excerpt: .... Until recently, defendant owned a distribution center in Camarillo, California, with twenty-one (21) non-exempt hourly-pay employees. On or about 07/31/17, defendant received an unannounced visit at its Orange County headquarters from Forensic Auditor Shearer with the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security referred to as “ICE”. A Notice of Inspection was hand served that same day, calling f...

Excerpt: ...approve any settlement thereof. Procedurally, the trial court must confirm that plaintiff satisfied all of the pre- and post-filing requirements. For example, before the lawsuit was filed, plaintiff was required to give the LWDA pre-filing notice via its online portal, within one year of the offense, “of the specific provisions of this code alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation.” The ...

Excerpt: ...suits here in Orange County (2011-462521, 2011-477186, and 2011-502285). Those disputes were eventually resolved by arbitration. During the course thereof, Colton was removed from his post as fund manager, and replaced with plaintiff Steven Speier (“Speier”). Soon after Speier took over, disputes arose. The funds sought to remove Speier and return Colton to his former position as funds manager. Speier filed suit (2017- 956650). Those claims w...

Excerpt: ...borists to secure the deposition of the City's retained expert consultant, specifically employing the services of the OCSD. To determine the propriety of the deposition, it is critical to discuss the deponent. Rebecca Latta is a certified arborist and tree risk assessor, with 28 years of experience in horticulture, arboriculture and water management for municipal, utility, residential and commercial properties. Review of her cv suggests that the ...

Excerpt: ...ions: Attorney Fees: $33,333.33 Litigation Costs: $12,000.00 Plaintiff Enhancement: $5,000.00 Admin. Costs: $5,000.00 LWDA: $3,750.00 Class size: 95 (but subclass treatment) Net to employees: $40,916.67 Class tax allocations: 20% W-2; 80% 1099 Provisional Certification of the Class After parties to a putative class action settle the dispute, they must present that settlement to the trial court for approval. If the class has not yet been certified...

Excerpt: ...nning nearly three years. It began in March of 2018 with a putative class action suit filed in Alameda County by then-plaintiff Tracy Reid and grew into five separate lawsuits in state and federal court throughout California. All of the representative plaintiffs came together for a global settlement, and in so doing agreed that the most efficient way to resolve the litigation was to bring all the actions under one roof. The resulting settlement w...

Excerpt: ...ollowing deductions/allocations: Attorney Fees: $300,000.00 Litigation Costs: $30,000.00 Plaintiff Enhancement: $15,000.00 x2 Admin. Costs: $11,000.00 LWDA: $33,750.00 Class size: 888 (but subclass treatment) Net to employees: $495,250.00 Class tax allocations: 12% W-2; 8% 1099 Uncashed checks: State Controller Provisional Certification of the Class After parties to a putative class action settle the dispute, they must present that settlement to ...

Excerpt: ...tlement, and a motion by defense counsel to withdraw. Motion to Approve Settlement A PAGA claim is a type of qui tam action in which a private plaintiff pursues a dispute between an employer and the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency on behalf of the state. Because the aggrieved employee stands in the shoes of the LWDA when prosecuting and resolving a PAGA claim, the trial court must review and approve any settlement thereof. On a propo...

Excerpt: ...�� 5th COA: business expenses;  6th COA: unfair business practices;  7th COA: PAGA. Before the Court this day is plaintiff's application for preliminary approval of a settlement reached in the action. The referenced litigation is slated to resolve for a gross settlement amount of $890,000.00. From there, counsel proposes the following deductions/allocations: Attorney Fees: $296,637.00 Litigation Costs: $20,000.00 Plaintiff Enhancement: $12,...

Excerpt: ... approval of a settlement reached in the action. The referenced litigation is slated to resolve for a gross settlement amount of $180,000.00 in monthly payments. From there, counsel proposes the following deductions/allocations: Attorney Fees: $60,000.00 Litigation Costs: $16,000.00 Plaintiff Enhancement: $5,000.00 Admin. Costs: $15,000.00 Class size: 450 Net to employees: $84,000.00 Class tax allocations: 33.3% W-2; 66.7% 1099 Uncashed checks: S...

Excerpt: ...is plaintiff's application for preliminary approval of a settlement reached in the action. The referenced litigation is slated to resolve for a gross settlement amount of $600,000.00. From there, counsel proposes the following deductions/allocations: Attorney Fees: $200,000.00 Litigation Costs: $15,000.00 Plaintiff Enhancement: $20,000.00 (total) Admin. Costs: $5,000.00 LWDA: $39,937.50 Class size: 21 Net to employees: $530,863.00 Class tax alloc...