On April 18, 2017 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Moniz, Rachel,
and
Adecco Usa, Inc.,
Does 1 To 50, Inclusive,
Does 1 To 9,
for Complex Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977)
1 David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409)
Kyle G. Bates (SBN 299114)
2 SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY
3 WOTKYNS LLP 5/11/2018
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
4 Emeryville, California 94608
Tel: (415) 421-7100
5 Fax: (415) 421-7105
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
6 dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
kbates@schneiderwallace.com
7
Attorneys for Rachel Moniz
8 and the State of California
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
RACHEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of Case No. 17CIV01736
11
California and aggrieved employees,
12 Assigned for All Purposes to
Plaintiff, Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
13
vs. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
14 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1-50, ADJUDICATION
15
inclusive,
16 Date: June 22, 2018
Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m.
17 Place: Dept. 2
18 Complaint Filed April 18, 2017
Trial Date: September 4, 2018
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 [PROPOSED] ORDER
2 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication and Defendant’s Motion for Summary
3 Adjudication came on for hearing in Department 2 of this Court on June 22, 2018. After full
4 consideration of the written and oral submissions by the parties, the Court finds that there are no triable
issues of material fact, and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Having considered
5
the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
6
1. The Parties have properly presented a stipulation for summary adjudication pursuant to
7
Section 437c of the California Code of Civil Procedure as to the issue of the scope of aggrieved
8
employees at issue in the above-captioned case. The Court finds that summary adjudication on this
9
issue will further the interest of judicial economy by decreasing trial time and/or significantly increase
10
the likelihood of settlement within the meaning of Section 437c(s)-(t) of the California Code of Civil
11
Procedure.
12
2. Pursuant to Section 437c of California Code of Civil Procedure, summary adjudication is
13
GRANTED as to the following issues:
14 a. All of Adecco’s Colleagues and Associates employed in California from February
15 1, 2016 through the present are aggrieved employees encompassed by Plaintiff’s
16 Complaint. Specifically:
17 i. As to Count I of the Moniz Complaint for violations of § 232 of the
18 California Labor Code, the Moniz Complaint properly seeks relief on
19 behalf of and encompasses alleged Labor Code violations pertaining to
20 Colleagues and Associates employed by Adecco in California from
21 February 1, 2016 through the present;
22 ii. As to Count II of the Moniz Complaint for violations of § 1197.5(k) of the
23 California Labor Code, the Moniz Complaint properly seeks relief on
behalf of and encompasses alleged Labor Code violations pertaining to
24
Colleagues and Associates employed by Adecco in California from
25
February 1, 2016 through the present;
26
iii. As to Count III of the Moniz Complaint for violations of § 232.5 of the
27
California Labor Code, the Moniz Complaint properly seeks relief on
28
behalf of and encompasses alleged Labor Code violations pertaining to
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 Colleagues and Associates employed by Adecco in California from
2 February 1, 2016 through the present;
3 iv. As to Count IV of the Moniz Complaint for violations of § 1102.5 of the
4 California Labor Code, the Moniz Complaint properly seeks relief on
behalf of and encompasses alleged Labor Code violations pertaining to
5
Colleagues and Associates employed by Adecco in California from
6
February 1, 2016 through the present;
7
v. As to Count V of the Moniz Complaint for violations of § 432.5 of the
8
California Labor Code, the Moniz Complaint properly seeks relief on
9
behalf of and encompasses alleged Labor Code violations pertaining to
10
Colleagues and Associates employed by Adecco in California from
11
February 1, 2016 through the present;
12
b. Plaintiff’s PAGA pre-litigation notice letter dated February 1, 2017 satisfies the
13
administrative prerequisites of the PAGA and properly identified alleged
14 violations of the California Labor Code as to all of Adecco’s Colleagues and
15 Associates employed in California from February 1, 2016 through the present,
16 along with facts and theories supporting the alleged violations.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED:
19
20
21 Hon. Judge Marie Weiner
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Document Filed Date
May 11, 2018
Case Filing Date
April 18, 2017
Category
Complex Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977) 1 David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409) Kyle G. Bates (SBN 299114) 2 SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY 3 WOTKYNS LLP 5/11/2018 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 4 Emeryville, California 94608 Tel: (415) 421-7100 5 Fax: (415) 421-7105 ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com 6 dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com kbates@schneiderwallace.com 7 Attorneys for Rachel Moniz 8 and the State of California 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 RACHEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of Case No. 17CIV01736 11 California and aggrieved employees, 12 Assigned for All Purposes to Plaintiff, Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2 13 vs. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 14 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADECCO USA, INC., and DOES 1-50, ADJUDICATION 15 inclusive, 16 Date: June 22, 2018 Defendants. Time: 9:00 a.m. 17 Place: Dept. 2 18 Complaint Filed April 18, 2017 Trial Date: September 4, 2018 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication and Defendant’s Motion for Summary 3 Adjudication came on for hearing in Department 2 of this Court on June 22, 2018. After full 4 consideration of the written and oral submissions by the parties, the Court finds that there are no triable issues of material fact, and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Having considered 5 the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 6 1. The Parties have properly presented a stipulation for summary adjudication pursuant to 7 Section 437c of the California Code of Civil Procedure as to the issue of the scope of aggrieved 8 employees at issue in the above-captioned case. The Court finds that summary adjudication on this 9 issue will further the interest of judicial economy by decreasing trial time and/or significantly increase 10 the likelihood of settlement within the meaning of Section 437c(s)-(t) of the California Code of Civil 11 Procedure. 12 2. Pursuant to Section 437c of California Code of Civil Procedure, summary adjudication is 13 GRANTED as to the following issues: 14 a. All of Adecco’s Colleagues and Associates employed in California from February 15 1, 2016 through the present are aggrieved employees encompassed by Plaintiff’s 16 Complaint. Specifically: 17 i. As to Count I of the Moniz Complaint for violations of § 232 of the 18 California Labor Code, the Moniz Complaint properly seeks relief on 19 behalf of and encompasses alleged Labor Code violations pertaining to 20 Colleagues and Associates employed by Adecco in California from 21 February 1, 2016 through the present; 22 ii. As to Count II of the Moniz Complaint for violations of § 1197.5(k) of the 23 California Labor Code, the Moniz Complaint properly seeks relief on behalf of and encompasses alleged Labor Code violations pertaining to 24 Colleagues and Associates employed by Adecco in California from 25 February 1, 2016 through the present; 26 iii. As to Count III of the Moniz Complaint for violations of § 232.5 of the 27 California Labor Code, the Moniz Complaint properly seeks relief on 28 behalf of and encompasses alleged Labor Code violations pertaining to 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Colleagues and Associates employed by Adecco in California from 2 February 1, 2016 through the present; 3 iv. As to Count IV of the Moniz Complaint for violations of § 1102.5 of the 4 California Labor Code, the Moniz Complaint properly seeks relief on behalf of and encompasses alleged Labor Code violations pertaining to 5 Colleagues and Associates employed by Adecco in California from 6 February 1, 2016 through the present; 7 v. As to Count V of the Moniz Complaint for violations of § 432.5 of the 8 California Labor Code, the Moniz Complaint properly seeks relief on 9 behalf of and encompasses alleged Labor Code violations pertaining to 10 Colleagues and Associates employed by Adecco in California from 11 February 1, 2016 through the present; 12 b. Plaintiff’s PAGA pre-litigation notice letter dated February 1, 2017 satisfies the 13 administrative prerequisites of the PAGA and properly identified alleged 14 violations of the California Labor Code as to all of Adecco’s Colleagues and 15 Associates employed in California from February 1, 2016 through the present, 16 along with facts and theories supporting the alleged violations. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED: 19 20 21 Hon. Judge Marie Weiner 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION