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