On February 14, 2020 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Tice, Victoria,
and
Trader Joe'S Company,
for Unlimited Other Employment (15)
in the District Court of Santa Barbara County.
Preview
COMPLEX CASE MANAGEMENT CALENDAR
Victoria Tice
V.
F I L E D
SUPERlOR COURT of CALIFORNIA
COUNTY of SANTA BARBARA
Trader Joe’s Company 06/24/2022
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
#20CV00892 BY Robles, Veronica
Deputy Clerk
Friday, June 24, 2022
8:30 a.m.
1. Complex Litigation. The Court has designated this as complex litigation;
fees have been waived because the designation is done to accommodate the
Court’s calendaring issues.
2. This is a wage and hour class action.- Plaintiff originally asserted class wide
claims for violation of Labor Code sections 201—203. Plaintiff sought penalties,
pursuant to Labor Code Sections 201-203, for Defendant’s failure to pay
putative class members all wages due and owing upon separation from
employment in circumstances where Defendant paid employees their final
wages on pay cards without prior authorization. Plaintiff sought civil penalties
as set forth in California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq, attorneys’ fees, and
costs.
3. The Parties discussed the possibility of early mediation [but apparently it
has not settled the case].
4. The Defendant denies the claims and denies that Plaintiff, or other current
or former employees, are entitled to any recovery.
5. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification on. September
21, 2021, with prejudice.
6. Plaintiff continues to prosecute her claim under the PAGA; seeks penalties,
pursuant to Labor Code Sections 201-203, for Defendant’s failure to pay
putative class members all wages due and owing upon separation from
employment in circumstances where Defendant paid employees their final
wages on pay cards without prior authorization; also seeks civil penalties as
set forth in California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq, attorneys’ fees, and
costs.
7. A motion was made to strike the PAGA claims, and the Court denied that
motion on 1/11/22.
8. Trial is now set on the PAGA claims for 2/14/23; time estimate is 4 days.
9. The Court recalls that a PAGA issue was before the Supreme Court, i.e.,
Vikings River Cruise vs Mariana; decision came down of June 15, 2022; does
that decision make a difference here? _N_o
10. A motion to compel was granted on 2/8/22; Court ordered Trader Joe's to
provide a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 10, on or before
March 1, 2022. Has that issue been resolved? Yes and No; will m&c and then
let the Court know whether the issue is better suited for an informal
discussion with the Court toget an idea of the Court’s thinkingor whether to
go right to a “motion to Quash.” The deadline to accomplish this is July 10.
ll. CMCSs filed; thank you.
Plaintiff [via Larry \V. Lee, Max Gavrou] reports: Discovery will be
completed per code; Plaintiff recently served a subpoena to the third-party
pay card provider seeking information regarding fees incurred by the
aggrieved employees.
Defendant did not file a CMCS.
12. Attorneys:
Plaintiff: Larry W. Lee, Max Gavron, William L. Marder
Defendant: Helene Wasserman, Shannon R. Boyce; Melissa Velez
Emails: —;
m23vr0n@divcrsitvlaw.com —;
011m pia@diversitylaw.com
—;
Erika@diversitvlaw.com bill@polarislawgroup.com;
hwasserman@iittler.com; sbovce@littler.com; mvelez@littler.com;
lwlee@divcrsitvlaw.com;
l3. A further CMC will be held on 10/14/22 8:30am to discuss the final
discovery issues; the Court has no intention to continue this case.
14. The final CMCO was emailed to counsel from the courtroom and no
further notice will be given.
/ éiaomas Pengerle, J udgeL
Document Filed Date
June 24, 2022
Case Filing Date
February 14, 2020
Category
Unlimited Other Employment (15)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
COMPLEX CASE MANAGEMENT CALENDAR Victoria Tice V. F I L E D SUPERlOR COURT of CALIFORNIA COUNTY of SANTA BARBARA Trader Joe’s Company 06/24/2022 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer #20CV00892 BY Robles, Veronica Deputy Clerk Friday, June 24, 2022 8:30 a.m. 1. Complex Litigation. The Court has designated this as complex litigation; fees have been waived because the designation is done to accommodate the Court’s calendaring issues. 2. This is a wage and hour class action.- Plaintiff originally asserted class wide claims for violation of Labor Code sections 201—203. Plaintiff sought penalties, pursuant to Labor Code Sections 201-203, for Defendant’s failure to pay putative class members all wages due and owing upon separation from employment in circumstances where Defendant paid employees their final wages on pay cards without prior authorization. Plaintiff sought civil penalties as set forth in California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 3. The Parties discussed the possibility of early mediation [but apparently it has not settled the case]. 4. The Defendant denies the claims and denies that Plaintiff, or other current or former employees, are entitled to any recovery. 5. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification on. September 21, 2021, with prejudice. 6. Plaintiff continues to prosecute her claim under the PAGA; seeks penalties, pursuant to Labor Code Sections 201-203, for Defendant’s failure to pay putative class members all wages due and owing upon separation from employment in circumstances where Defendant paid employees their final wages on pay cards without prior authorization; also seeks civil penalties as set forth in California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 7. A motion was made to strike the PAGA claims, and the Court denied that motion on 1/11/22. 8. Trial is now set on the PAGA claims for 2/14/23; time estimate is 4 days. 9. The Court recalls that a PAGA issue was before the Supreme Court, i.e., Vikings River Cruise vs Mariana; decision came down of June 15, 2022; does that decision make a difference here? _N_o 10. A motion to compel was granted on 2/8/22; Court ordered Trader Joe's to provide a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 10, on or before March 1, 2022. Has that issue been resolved? Yes and No; will m&c and then let the Court know whether the issue is better suited for an informal discussion with the Court toget an idea of the Court’s thinkingor whether to go right to a “motion to Quash.” The deadline to accomplish this is July 10. ll. CMCSs filed; thank you. Plaintiff [via Larry \V. Lee, Max Gavrou] reports: Discovery will be completed per code; Plaintiff recently served a subpoena to the third-party pay card provider seeking information regarding fees incurred by the aggrieved employees. Defendant did not file a CMCS. 12. Attorneys: Plaintiff: Larry W. Lee, Max Gavron, William L. Marder Defendant: Helene Wasserman, Shannon R. Boyce; Melissa Velez Emails: —; m23vr0n@divcrsitvlaw.com —; 011m pia@diversitylaw.com —; Erika@diversitvlaw.com bill@polarislawgroup.com; hwasserman@iittler.com; sbovce@littler.com; mvelez@littler.com; lwlee@divcrsitvlaw.com; l3. A further CMC will be held on 10/14/22 8:30am to discuss the final discovery issues; the Court has no intention to continue this case. 14. The final CMCO was emailed to counsel from the courtroom and no further notice will be given. / éiaomas Pengerle, J udgeL