arrow left
arrow right
  • MICHAEL JORDAN VS. MAPLEBEAR, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • MICHAEL JORDAN VS. MAPLEBEAR, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • MICHAEL JORDAN VS. MAPLEBEAR, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • MICHAEL JORDAN VS. MAPLEBEAR, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • MICHAEL JORDAN VS. MAPLEBEAR, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • MICHAEL JORDAN VS. MAPLEBEAR, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • MICHAEL JORDAN VS. MAPLEBEAR, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
  • MICHAEL JORDAN VS. MAPLEBEAR, INC. ET AL OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 Robert S. Arns, State Bar No. 65071 rsa@arnslaw.com 2 Jonathan E. Davis, State Bar No. 191346 ELECTRONICALLY 3 jed@arnslaw.com FILED Kevin M. Osborne, State Bar No. 261367 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 kmo@arnslaw.com Julie C. Erickson, State Bar No. 293111 01/15/2020 5 Clerk of the Court jce@arnslaw.com BY: JUDITH NUNEZ 6 Shounak S. Dharap, State Bar No. 311557 Deputy Clerk ssd@arnslaw.com 7 THE ARNS LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 8 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor 9 San Francisco, CA 94105 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 Additional Counsel Below 12 13 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISO 14 CIVIL UNLIMITED 15 16 MICHAEL JORDAN, on behalf of himself and No. CGC-19-579780 all others similarly situated, 17 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT Plaintiff, CONFERENCE STATEMENT 18 19 Date: January 21, 2020 vs. Time: 2:00 p.m. 20 Dept: 304 MAPLEBEAR INC. dba INSTACART, Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo 21 and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive 22 Complaint Filed: October 4, 2019 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1366383.v1 1 Additional Counsel: 2 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP RACHAEL E. MENY - # 178514 3 rmeny@keker.com BENJAMIN BERKOWITZ - # 244441 4 bberkowitz@keker.com RYAN K. WONG - # 267189 5 rwong@keker.com ERIN E. MEYER - # 274244 6 emeyer@keker.com JULIA L. ALLEN - # 286097 7 jallen@keker.com DONNA ZAMORA-STEVENS - #318525 8 dzamora-stevens@keker.com 9 MELISSA CORNELL - #323307 mcornell@keker.com 10 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 11 Telephone: 415 391 5400 Facsimile: 415 397 7188 12 Attorneys for Defendant 13 MAPLEBEAR INC. dba INSTACART 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1366383.v1 1 Plaintiff MICHAEL JORDAN and Defendant MAPLEBEAR INC. dba INSTACART 2 hereby submit this Joint Case Management Conference Statement pursuant to this Court’s 3 November 22, 2019 Order Granting Complex Designation and for Single Assignment and Rule 4 3.750 of the California Rules of Court. 5 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 6 Plaintiff brings a wage and hour putative class action on behalf of a group of grocery 7 delivery persons (“Instacart Shoppers” or “Shoppers”) who allege they were misclassified as 8 independent contractors and therefore improperly paid while in the employ of Defendant from 9 2017 to the present. Plaintiff also alleges that Instacart unlawfully appropriated gratuities paid by 10 customers and used them as a credit against Shoppers’ wages, and that Shoppers were subject to 11 frequent malfunctions of the mobile platform on which they performed work for Instacart, to 12 their detriment. Plaintiff brings a civil action for damages. Defendant denies the foregoing 13 allegations and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any damages. On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff 14 submitted a notice letter to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) pursuant 15 to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) and will seek to amend the complaint to add a 16 cause of action under PAGA in the near future. 17 On November 20, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay 18 pursuant to the arbitration agreement within the Independent Contractor Agreement signed by 19 Plaintiff. Before the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Instacart’s Motion, this Court issued an 20 Order Granting Complex Designation and for Single Assignment on November 22, 2019, which 21 vacated the hearing date for the Motion. Accordingly, Instacart’s Motion remains pending 22 without a hearing date. 23 SUBJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION 24 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.750(b), the Parties hereby discuss their 25 respective positions as to the following subjects for consideration at the January 21, 2020 Case 26 Management Conference. 27 (1) Whether all parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint have been served, 28 have appeared, or have been dismissed: -3- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1366383.v1 1 All parties named in the Complaint filed October 4, 2019 have been served and have 2 appeared. 3 (2) Whether any additional parties may be added or the pleadings may be amended: 4 Plaintiff’s Position. On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a PAGA notice to the Labor 5 and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) under Labor Code section 2699.3 notifying the 6 LWDA that Plaintiff intends to seek civil penalties on behalf of the State of California for 7 violations Labor Code. Plaintiff served the notice on Defendant via certified mail. The 65-day 8 notice period has now passed; therefore Plaintiff intends to amend his complaint to add a cause 9 of action for civil penalties. 10 Plaintiff does not anticipate the addition of any additional parties but reserves his right to 11 add additional plaintiffs to this action. 12 Defendant’s Position. Defendant has not yet been served with Plaintiff’s proposed 13 amended complaint and therefore reserves all its rights with respect to that proposed amendment. 14 (3) The deadline for the filing of any remaining pleadings and service of any 15 additional parties: 16 Plaintiff’s Position. Plaintiff intends to file his First Amended Complaint prior to the 17 January 21, 2020 case management conference. Plaintiff reserves his right to further seek to 18 amend his pleading based on the discovery of new information. 19 Defendant’s Position. Instacart has a currently-pending motion to compel arbitration 20 and to stay this litigation. Instacart respectfully requests that the Court set a hearing on that 21 motion at its earliest available date. 22 (4) Whether severance, consolidation, or coordination with other actions is desirable: 23 Plaintiff’s Position. Plaintiff does not believe severance, consolidation, or coordination 24 with other actions is desirable at this time. 25 Defendant’s Position. Should the Court deny Instacart’s motion to compel arbitration 26 and to stay this litigation, Instacart reserves its right to seek to stay this action in light of earlier- 27 filed filed actions, as described in its previously filed Notice of Related Cases. 28 -4- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1366383.v1 1 (5) The schedule for discovery proceedings to avoid duplication and whether discovery should be stayed until all parties have been brought into the case: 2 Plaintiff’s Position. Plaintiff’s position is that Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration 3 and stay is without merit, that no stay should be imposed, and that discovery should be permitted 4 to proceed according to the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in the interest of judicial 5 economy, Plaintiff will not serve discovery—except to the extent such discovery is relevant to 6 the issues raised in Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration—until after the Court has ruled on 7 the motion. 8 Defendant’s Position. Defendant agrees that discovery should be stayed pending 9 resolution of its pending motion to compel arbitration and to stay. Defendant’s position is that 10 this litigation should be stayed in its entirety in light of the agreement to arbitrate. 11 (6) The schedule for settlement conferences or alternative dispute resolution: 12 Plaintiff’s Position. Plaintiff is open to private mediation to reach a resolution between 13 Parties. 14 Defendant’s Position. Defendant believes mediation is premature prior to resolution of 15 its pending motion to compel arbitration and to stay. 16 (7) Whether to appoint liaison or lead counsel: 17 Plaintiff’s Position. Plaintiff believes the appointment of liaison or lead counsel is 18 unnecessary at this time. However, should the related cases be consolidated or judicially 19 coordinated, Plaintiff will seek appointment as lead counsel, due to his counsel’s familiarity with 20 the litigation of claims stemming from independent misclassification against Defendant. 21 Plaintiff’s counsel has previously represented classes of Instacart Shoppers in multiple lawsuits 22 that resulted in a settlement with significant monetary and non-monetary recovery to the classes. 23 Defendant’s Position. Defendant agrees that the Court should not appoint lead or liaison 24 counsel at this time. 25 (8) The date for the filing of any dispositive motions: 26 Plaintiff’s Position. Plaintiff’s position is that Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration 27 and stay is without merit. Defendant filed its Motion on November 20, 2019. No hearing date 28 -5- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1366383.v1 1 is currently scheduled for Defendant’s Motion. Plaintiff proposes that the Parties coordinate 2 scheduling for dispositive motions and the motion for class certification once the Court has ruled 3 on the pending motion to compel arbitration. 4 Defendant’s Position. Instacart respectfully requests that the Court set a hearing on its 5 motion to compel arbitration and to stay at the Court’s earliest available date. 6 (9) The creation of preliminary and updated lists of the persons to be deposed and 7 the subjects to be addressed in each deposition: 8 Plaintiff’s Position. Plaintiff intends to serve notices of depositions seeking to depose 9 the Persons Most Qualified to testify regarding various subjects relating to the wage and hour 10 violations alleged in the Complaint, including policies relating to Shoppers’ payment and terms 11 and conditions of work. However, Plaintiff is willing to withhold merits and class discovery until 12 the Court has ruled on the pending motion to compel arbitration and to stay. 13 Defendant’s Position. Instacart’s position is that discovery should be stayed pending the 14 Court’s ruling on Instacart’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay. 15 (10) The exchange of documents and whether to establish an electronic document depository: 16 Plaintiff’s Position. Plaintiff does not believe this action will require the establishment 17 of an electronic document depository. However, Plaintiff intends to meet and confer to stipulate 18 to a protocol for the format of electronically stored information (ESI). 19 Defendant’s Position. Instacart does not believe that any documents should be 20 exchanged at this time in light of the above-identified issues. However, to the extent documents 21 are produced, Instacart agrees it will meet and confer regarding a protocol for the format of ESI 22 as well as a protective order governing production and use of any confidential information. 23 (11) Whether a special master should be appointed and the purposes for such 24 appointment: 25 At present the Parties do not anticipate this action would require appointment of a special 26 master for any purpose. 27 (12) Whether to establish a case-based Web site and other means to provide a current master list of addresses and telephone numbers of counsel: 28 -6- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1366383.v1 1 Plaintiff’s Position. Plaintiff believes the establishment of a website for this matter to 2 enable access to information about the case and counsel would be in the best interest of the 3 putative class. From Plaintiff’s counsel’s previous representation of individuals who performed 4 grocery delivery for Instacart, counsel is aware that the putative class members are active in a 5 number of online and social media groups and would be able to easily find information regarding 6 the case if it were posted online. At present, Plaintiff’s counsel receives numerous phone calls 7 per week from Instacart Shoppers seeking additional information about wage and hour lawsuits 8 against Instacart. 9 Defendant’s Position. Instacart does not believe a case-based website is necessary at 10 this time. 11 (13) The schedule for further conferences. 12 The Parties agree that the Case Management Conference should remain on calendar as 13 scheduled on January 21, 2020. Additionally, Instacart requests a hearing at the Court’s earliest 14 available date on its pending motion to compel arbitration and to stay. The Parties may request 15 conferences and/or hearings during the course of this case, but otherwise leave the scheduling of 16 such further conferences to the Court’s discretion. 17 18 19 Dated: January 15, 2020 THE ARNS LAW FIRM 20 21 /s/ Shounak S. Dharap 22 By:___________________________ SHOUNAK S. DHARAP 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff 24 25 26 27 28 -7- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1366383.v1 1 Dated: January 15, 2020 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 2 3 4 /s/ Julia L. Allen By: _____________________________ 5 JULIA L. ALLEN 6 Attorney for Defendant 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1366383.v1