Preview
1 KENNETH PRITIKIN, ESQ. (SBN 108072)
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH PRITIKIN
2 2950 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: (510) 710-7136 ELECTRONICALLY
3
Facsimile: (925) 262-4668 FILED
4 Email: kwpritikin@gmail.com Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Attorney for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, 05/12/2022
5 ESFIR VINER Clerk of the Court
BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
6 Deputy Clerk
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11
12 ESFIR VINER, Case No.: CGC-18-571704
13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 75-DAY
14 vs. FILING AND NOTICE PERIOD FOR
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
15 DAVID J. MCMAHON; THE LAW OFFICES ADJUDICATION
OF DAVID J. MCMAHON; and DOES 1-10,
16 inclusive,
[Filed concurrently with Stipulation for
17 Defendants. Order; Declaration of Kenneth Pritikin;
[Proposed] Order
18
Date: May 13, 2022
19 Time: 11:00 a.m.
Dept.: 302
20 Hon. Richard B. Ulmer, Jr.
21
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION
22 Action Filed: November 30, 2018
Trial Date: September 12, 2022
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. CGC-18-571704 – STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 75-DAY FILING AND
NOTICE PERIOD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 EX PARTE APPLICATION
2 This is a stipulated ex parte application for an Order shortening the 75-day filing and
3 notice period for Plaintiff Esfir Viner’s (“Plaintiff” or “Esfir”) Motion for Summary Adjudication
4 (“Motion”). Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Motion was served on April 22, 2022 but has
5 not been filed pending issuance of the requested Order.
6 This action (“Esfir Action”) was consolidated for trial with two related cases on August 1,
7 2019. (Pritikin Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application (“Pritikin Decl.”), ¶¶ 2, 6.) The
8 related cases are Bogdan Viner v. McMahon et al., CGC-19-571704 (“Bogdan Action”) and
9 Victoria Boyko v. McMahon, et al., CGC-18-569759 (“Boyko Action”). (Id.) The three cases are
10 referred to collectively as “the Consolidated Actions.”
11 Esfir previously filed a motion for summary adjudication, which was heard on December
12 22, 2021 together with similar motions for summary adjudication brought by the Plaintiffs in the
13 Bogdan Action and the Boyko Action. (Pritikin Decl., ¶ 17.) As to all three motions, the Court
14 found good cause to grant the Defendant’s request for a continuance in the hearing on the
15 motions. The Orders After Hearing on each of the motions noted that the parties had agreed in
16 principle to seek a continued trial date and to extend the discovery cutoff date, and stated that “the
17 parties are advised that they may stipulate to shorten the statutory 75-day notice period.” (Id.)
18 Since the date the Orders After Hearing were issued, Defendant’s counsel has competed
19 the depositions of each of the Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Actions, the trial date has been
20 continued, the Plaintiffs in each of the consolidated actions have served their renewed summary
21 adjudication motions, and the parties have stipulated to a shortened notice period. (Pritikin Decl.,
22 ¶ 18; Stipulation for Order.)
23 By this application, the parties thus seek an order allowing the following briefing and
24 hearing schedule for the renewed motion in this action, and directing that the motion be filed
25 within three days of entry of the order:
26 April 22, 2022 Motion for Summary Adjudication filed (done)
27 May 20, 2022 Opposition to be filed and served
28 June 2, 2022 Reply to be filed and served
-1-
CASE NO. CGC-18-571704 – STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 75-DAY FILING AND NOTICE
PERIOD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 June 9, 2022 Hearing
2 (Pritikin Decl., ¶ 18; Stipulation for Order.)
3 There have been no other procedural or substantive developments in this action, other than
4 the continuance of the trial date, there have been no formal discovery activities, other than the
5 deposition of Esfir, since the original motion was heard in December 2021. (Pritikin Decl., ¶ 19.)
6 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
7 The Esfir Action was filed on November 30, 2018 by Esfir Viner against David McMahon
8 and his sole proprietorship law practice (the “McMahon Parties”), and it is more than three years
9 old. It is a wage and hour case, seeking significant amounts in unpaid wages, overtime and
10 related damages. The Esfir Action was preceded by the Boyko Action on September 14, 2018
11 and followed by the Bogdan Action on April 16, 2019, each seeking similar relief against the
12 McMahon Parties. (Pritikin Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)
13 The long delay in bringing the Consolidated Actions to resolution is attributable to factors
14 largely beyond the control of the parties. These factors are summarized as follows:
15 • The Esfir Action was consolidated with the Bogdan Action and the Boyko Action on
16 August 10, 2019, leading to a consolidated trial date of May 26, 2020. (Pritikin Decl.,
17 ¶¶ 6, 7.)
18 • The May 26, 2020 trial date was vacated on the Court’s initiative due to the COVID-
19 19 public health emergency. (Id., ¶ 8.)
20 • David McMahon was ill and unable to participate in various case activities for several
21 months in 2020, and he passed away suddenly on November 7, 2020. (Id., ¶¶ 9-11.)
22 • Case activity was at a standstill following Mr. McMahon’s death until the end of May,
23 2021, when the McMahon Estate representative, Kim Schwarcz, was substituted into
24 the Consolidated Actions. (Id., ¶¶ 12-15.)
25 • Those foregoing factors caused delays in the completion of the depositions of each of
26 the Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Actions. (Id., ¶ 16.)
27 • The same factors led the Court to find good cause to continue the Motion when it was
28 first heard on December 22, 2021. (Id., ¶ 17.)
-2-
CASE NO. CGC-18-571704 – STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 75-DAY FILING AND NOTICE
PERIOD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 CONCLUSION
2 Based on the foregoing circumstances a shortened filing and notice period is reasonable
3 and appropriate. The only barrier to the Court’s ruling on all of the issues presented by the
4 Motion when it was first heard has been resolved, and there have been no new procedural
5 developments in the interim, apart from a continuance in the trial date. The parties have therefore
6 stipulated to and request that the Court order the following shortened notice period, and to
7 provide that the Motion be filed within three days of the issuance of the Order:
8 April 22, 2022 Motion for Summary Adjudication served (done).
9 May 20, 2022 Opposition to be filed and served.
10 June 2, 2022 Reply to be filed and served.
11 June 9, 2022 Hearing
12
13 Respectfully submitted,
14
_______________________________
15
Dated: May 12, 2022 KENNETH PRITIKIN
16 LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH PRITIKIN
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant,
17 ESFIR VINER
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
CASE NO. CGC-18-571704 – STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 75-DAY FILING AND NOTICE
PERIOD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Preview
1 KENNETH PRITIKIN, ESQ. (SBN 108072) LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH PRITIKIN 2 2950 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: (510) 710-7136 ELECTRONICALLY 3 Facsimile: (925) 262-4668 FILED 4 Email: kwpritikin@gmail.com Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Attorney for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, 05/12/2022 5 ESFIR VINER Clerk of the Court BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE 6 Deputy Clerk 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 12 ESFIR VINER, Case No.: CGC-18-571704 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 75-DAY 14 vs. FILING AND NOTICE PERIOD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY 15 DAVID J. MCMAHON; THE LAW OFFICES ADJUDICATION OF DAVID J. MCMAHON; and DOES 1-10, 16 inclusive, [Filed concurrently with Stipulation for 17 Defendants. Order; Declaration of Kenneth Pritikin; [Proposed] Order 18 Date: May 13, 2022 19 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept.: 302 20 Hon. Richard B. Ulmer, Jr. 21 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION 22 Action Filed: November 30, 2018 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. CGC-18-571704 – STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 75-DAY FILING AND NOTICE PERIOD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 EX PARTE APPLICATION 2 This is a stipulated ex parte application for an Order shortening the 75-day filing and 3 notice period for Plaintiff Esfir Viner’s (“Plaintiff” or “Esfir”) Motion for Summary Adjudication 4 (“Motion”). Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Motion was served on April 22, 2022 but has 5 not been filed pending issuance of the requested Order. 6 This action (“Esfir Action”) was consolidated for trial with two related cases on August 1, 7 2019. (Pritikin Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application (“Pritikin Decl.”), ¶¶ 2, 6.) The 8 related cases are Bogdan Viner v. McMahon et al., CGC-19-571704 (“Bogdan Action”) and 9 Victoria Boyko v. McMahon, et al., CGC-18-569759 (“Boyko Action”). (Id.) The three cases are 10 referred to collectively as “the Consolidated Actions.” 11 Esfir previously filed a motion for summary adjudication, which was heard on December 12 22, 2021 together with similar motions for summary adjudication brought by the Plaintiffs in the 13 Bogdan Action and the Boyko Action. (Pritikin Decl., ¶ 17.) As to all three motions, the Court 14 found good cause to grant the Defendant’s request for a continuance in the hearing on the 15 motions. The Orders After Hearing on each of the motions noted that the parties had agreed in 16 principle to seek a continued trial date and to extend the discovery cutoff date, and stated that “the 17 parties are advised that they may stipulate to shorten the statutory 75-day notice period.” (Id.) 18 Since the date the Orders After Hearing were issued, Defendant’s counsel has competed 19 the depositions of each of the Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Actions, the trial date has been 20 continued, the Plaintiffs in each of the consolidated actions have served their renewed summary 21 adjudication motions, and the parties have stipulated to a shortened notice period. (Pritikin Decl., 22 ¶ 18; Stipulation for Order.) 23 By this application, the parties thus seek an order allowing the following briefing and 24 hearing schedule for the renewed motion in this action, and directing that the motion be filed 25 within three days of entry of the order: 26 April 22, 2022 Motion for Summary Adjudication filed (done) 27 May 20, 2022 Opposition to be filed and served 28 June 2, 2022 Reply to be filed and served -1- CASE NO. CGC-18-571704 – STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 75-DAY FILING AND NOTICE PERIOD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 June 9, 2022 Hearing 2 (Pritikin Decl., ¶ 18; Stipulation for Order.) 3 There have been no other procedural or substantive developments in this action, other than 4 the continuance of the trial date, there have been no formal discovery activities, other than the 5 deposition of Esfir, since the original motion was heard in December 2021. (Pritikin Decl., ¶ 19.) 6 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 7 The Esfir Action was filed on November 30, 2018 by Esfir Viner against David McMahon 8 and his sole proprietorship law practice (the “McMahon Parties”), and it is more than three years 9 old. It is a wage and hour case, seeking significant amounts in unpaid wages, overtime and 10 related damages. The Esfir Action was preceded by the Boyko Action on September 14, 2018 11 and followed by the Bogdan Action on April 16, 2019, each seeking similar relief against the 12 McMahon Parties. (Pritikin Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) 13 The long delay in bringing the Consolidated Actions to resolution is attributable to factors 14 largely beyond the control of the parties. These factors are summarized as follows: 15 • The Esfir Action was consolidated with the Bogdan Action and the Boyko Action on 16 August 10, 2019, leading to a consolidated trial date of May 26, 2020. (Pritikin Decl., 17 ¶¶ 6, 7.) 18 • The May 26, 2020 trial date was vacated on the Court’s initiative due to the COVID- 19 19 public health emergency. (Id., ¶ 8.) 20 • David McMahon was ill and unable to participate in various case activities for several 21 months in 2020, and he passed away suddenly on November 7, 2020. (Id., ¶¶ 9-11.) 22 • Case activity was at a standstill following Mr. McMahon’s death until the end of May, 23 2021, when the McMahon Estate representative, Kim Schwarcz, was substituted into 24 the Consolidated Actions. (Id., ¶¶ 12-15.) 25 • Those foregoing factors caused delays in the completion of the depositions of each of 26 the Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Actions. (Id., ¶ 16.) 27 • The same factors led the Court to find good cause to continue the Motion when it was 28 first heard on December 22, 2021. (Id., ¶ 17.) -2- CASE NO. CGC-18-571704 – STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 75-DAY FILING AND NOTICE PERIOD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing circumstances a shortened filing and notice period is reasonable 3 and appropriate. The only barrier to the Court’s ruling on all of the issues presented by the 4 Motion when it was first heard has been resolved, and there have been no new procedural 5 developments in the interim, apart from a continuance in the trial date. The parties have therefore 6 stipulated to and request that the Court order the following shortened notice period, and to 7 provide that the Motion be filed within three days of the issuance of the Order: 8 April 22, 2022 Motion for Summary Adjudication served (done). 9 May 20, 2022 Opposition to be filed and served. 10 June 2, 2022 Reply to be filed and served. 11 June 9, 2022 Hearing 12 13 Respectfully submitted, 14 _______________________________ 15 Dated: May 12, 2022 KENNETH PRITIKIN 16 LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH PRITIKIN Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant, 17 ESFIR VINER 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- CASE NO. CGC-18-571704 – STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN 75-DAY FILING AND NOTICE PERIOD FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION