On September 07, 2021 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Aris Guerrero And Ashden Russell,
and
Does 1-100,
Jeld-Wen, Inc.,
for Complex Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Tentative Rulings for August 10, 2022
Department 8-26
Judge David Cohn
Tentative Rulings for Department 8-26 are posted on the court’s website
(https://www.sb-coumorg/divisions/civil/Civil-te
ntative—rulings) at 3:00 p.m. or at 7:00
p.m. the court day before the hearing. If no tentative ruling is posted at 3:00 p.m.,
please check again after 7:00 p.m.
lfyou do not wish to submit on a tentative ruling, you must appear for the hearing
either in person or via CourtCall (888-882-6878 or www.courtcaH.com). Failure to
appear is deemed a waiver of oral argument. lf allparties submit on a tentative ruling,
the tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court at the hearing. The tentative
ruling may note particular issues on which the court requests the parties to provide
further argument at the hearing. If so directed, attendance at the hearing is mandatory,
either in person or via CourtCall. The party prevailing on a motion or other hearing shall
serve written notice ofthe court’s ruling unless all parties waive notice of the ruling.
9. Guerrero, Russell v. Jen-Weld, Inc.
ClVSB-2125846
Motion to Stay
Tentative Ruling:
The Nieto PAGA action, which was filed before this case and therefore covers a
longer time-period, seeks penalties for the same alleged Labor Code violations alleged
in this case, with the exception of the claim relating to unreimbursed business expenses
asserted in this case. Nieto does not include that claim.
The Rivera PAGA action was also filed before this case and therefore covers a
longer time-period, and seeks penalties for allthe same labor Code violations alleged in
this case. Therefore, this case is subsumed entirely by the claims asserted in the
Rivera PAGA action. The Rivera PAGA action, however, has been stayed pending
resolution of the Rivera class action, pending in District Court.
The Rivera class action, while alleging the same Labor Code violations as this
case, seeks damages on behalf of a putative class. There is no PAGA component.
Unlike this case, the Rivera class action does not seek penalties on behalf of the State
for alleged Labor Code violations. The named class representatives in the class action
include the PAGA representatives in this case, but the PAGA representatives are not
real parties in interest. They are suing on behalf of the State of California, which
declined (or ignored) the plaintiffs’ notice to the LWDA. Because the parties are not the
same, the question is whether an adjudication the Rivera class
in action would be
Page 1 of 2
CVSZ6081022
binding in this action. Deleon v. Verizon Wireless (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 519, 528,
cited by defendant in the Reply, suggests that it would, based on the primary rights
theory, but Deleon is listed on LEXIS as “NOT ClTABLE—SUPERSEDED
OF REVIEW."
BY GRANT
Counsel should be prepared to address the status of Deleon, whether
the court can rely on it,and, if not,whether other authority addresses the questi on.1
Ifthe principle announced in Deleon good
is law, the best course of action may
be to stay this case, because the time-period covered in the Rivera class action
subsumes the time—period covered in this case. Counsel, however, should be prepared
to advise the court of the procedural status of the Rivera class action. If the class
remains uncertified at this time, this matter, if not stayed, may be able to proceed to trial
well in advance of the Rivera class action. Does Deleon run both
in directions? ln other
words, would a PAGAjudgment in this case preclude the claims inthe Rivera class
action?
If Deleon is not good law, a more limited may still
stay be appropriate. A
settlement has been reached in Nieto. If approved, the settlement would cover all the
claims asserted in this case except for unreimbursed business expenses. The court
could stay everything except the claim for unreimbursed business expenses, but
schedule a review hearing shortly after the approval hearing in Nieto. Counsel should
be prepared to advise the court on the status of the Nieto settlement.
'
LEXIS indicates that the opinion
was depublished, but review was later dismissed and the case was
remanded‘ The 0f Deleon
citability is unclear t0 the court.
Page 2 of 2
CVSZ6081022
Document Filed Date
August 10, 2022
Case Filing Date
September 07, 2021
Category
Complex Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Tentative Rulings for August 10, 2022 Department 8-26 Judge David Cohn Tentative Rulings for Department 8-26 are posted on the court’s website (https://www.sb-coumorg/divisions/civil/Civil-te ntative—rulings) at 3:00 p.m. or at 7:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. If no tentative ruling is posted at 3:00 p.m., please check again after 7:00 p.m. lfyou do not wish to submit on a tentative ruling, you must appear for the hearing either in person or via CourtCall (888-882-6878 or www.courtcaH.com). Failure to appear is deemed a waiver of oral argument. lf allparties submit on a tentative ruling, the tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court at the hearing. The tentative ruling may note particular issues on which the court requests the parties to provide further argument at the hearing. If so directed, attendance at the hearing is mandatory, either in person or via CourtCall. The party prevailing on a motion or other hearing shall serve written notice ofthe court’s ruling unless all parties waive notice of the ruling. 9. Guerrero, Russell v. Jen-Weld, Inc. ClVSB-2125846 Motion to Stay Tentative Ruling: The Nieto PAGA action, which was filed before this case and therefore covers a longer time-period, seeks penalties for the same alleged Labor Code violations alleged in this case, with the exception of the claim relating to unreimbursed business expenses asserted in this case. Nieto does not include that claim. The Rivera PAGA action was also filed before this case and therefore covers a longer time-period, and seeks penalties for allthe same labor Code violations alleged in this case. Therefore, this case is subsumed entirely by the claims asserted in the Rivera PAGA action. The Rivera PAGA action, however, has been stayed pending resolution of the Rivera class action, pending in District Court. The Rivera class action, while alleging the same Labor Code violations as this case, seeks damages on behalf of a putative class. There is no PAGA component. Unlike this case, the Rivera class action does not seek penalties on behalf of the State for alleged Labor Code violations. The named class representatives in the class action include the PAGA representatives in this case, but the PAGA representatives are not real parties in interest. They are suing on behalf of the State of California, which declined (or ignored) the plaintiffs’ notice to the LWDA. Because the parties are not the same, the question is whether an adjudication the Rivera class in action would be Page 1 of 2 CVSZ6081022 binding in this action. Deleon v. Verizon Wireless (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 519, 528, cited by defendant in the Reply, suggests that it would, based on the primary rights theory, but Deleon is listed on LEXIS as “NOT ClTABLE—SUPERSEDED OF REVIEW." BY GRANT Counsel should be prepared to address the status of Deleon, whether the court can rely on it,and, if not,whether other authority addresses the questi on.1 Ifthe principle announced in Deleon good is law, the best course of action may be to stay this case, because the time-period covered in the Rivera class action subsumes the time—period covered in this case. Counsel, however, should be prepared to advise the court of the procedural status of the Rivera class action. If the class remains uncertified at this time, this matter, if not stayed, may be able to proceed to trial well in advance of the Rivera class action. Does Deleon run both in directions? ln other words, would a PAGAjudgment in this case preclude the claims inthe Rivera class action? If Deleon is not good law, a more limited may still stay be appropriate. A settlement has been reached in Nieto. If approved, the settlement would cover all the claims asserted in this case except for unreimbursed business expenses. The court could stay everything except the claim for unreimbursed business expenses, but schedule a review hearing shortly after the approval hearing in Nieto. Counsel should be prepared to advise the court on the status of the Nieto settlement. ' LEXIS indicates that the opinion was depublished, but review was later dismissed and the case was remanded‘ The 0f Deleon citability is unclear t0 the court. Page 2 of 2 CVSZ6081022