Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
3 Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115)
Christine T. LeVu (State Bar #288271)
4 Andrew Ronan (State Bar #312316) 1/31/2023
2255 Calle Clara
5 La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858)551-1223
6 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
7 Website: www.bamlawca.com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
CHRISTOPHER A. BRAHAM (SBN 293367)
10 cbraham@mwe.com
11 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2049 Century Park East
12 Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
13 Telephone: +1 310 277 4110
Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730
14
15 Attorneys for Defendant
16
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
18
19 PRECIOUS CHATMAN, an individual, on Case No. 22-CIV-02197
behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
20 similarly situated,
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
21 STATEMENT
Plaintiff,
22 Date: February 6, 2023
vs. Time: 9:00 a.m.
23 Dept: 21
WEDRIVEU, INC., a California Corporation; Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foiles
24 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
25 Action Filed: June 2, 2022
Defendants.
26
27
28
1
JOINT CASE MANAEMENT STATEMENT
1 Plaintiff PRECIOUS CHATMAN (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant WEDRIVEU, INC.
2 (“Defendant”) (collectively the “Parties”), jointly submit the following Case Management
3 Conference Statement in connection with the Case Management Conference scheduled for
4 February 6, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.
5 1. STATUS OF PLEADINGS AND APPEARANCES OF NAMED PARTIES
6 All Parties have been served and have appeared. The Parties do not anticipate that additional
7 Parties will be added at this time. However, Plaintiff requests that the Doe Defendants remain
8 pending discovery in this matter and are not dismissed prematurely.
9 2. STATUS OF DISCOVERY
10 Plaintiff intends to serve discovery and intends on noticing the deposition of Plaintiff’s
11 PMK. Defendant was hopeful that the action could be resolved informally after the Federal Court
12 dismissed nearly half of the claims because they are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.
13 However, it appears that it will need to resolve the case through formal litigation and will be serving
14 discovery before the conference (with the understanding the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to said
15 requests may be stayed due to Defendant’s request denoted in Section 6 below).
16 3. STATUS OF SETTLEMENT OR MEDIATION
17 If Defendant is willing to provide informally production of payroll records, wage statements,
18 time records, the number of workweeks and the number of class members and its policies applicable
19 to the class members, Plaintiff would be happy to engage in early mediation. However, without a
20 proper analysis of the claims, Plaintiff would be unable to meaningfully engaged in mediation.
21 Defendant has no interest in mediating this case which is a copy-cat of an earlier class action
22 filed against it (Davis v. WeDriveU, Inc. – Santa Clara County Superior Court – Case No.
23 128CV322578) that was resolved on a class wide basis with a release period that eats into this
24 Action.
25 4. LISTING OF ALL PENDING MOTIONS AND PROPOSED NEW HEARING
26 DATES
27 There are no motions currently pending.
28
2
JOINT CASE MANAEMENT STATEMENT
1 5. ANTICIPATED MOTIONS
2 Plaintiff intends on filing a motion for class certification and proposes a date in March of
3 2024 for a hearing on her motion for class certification.
4 Defendant is confident none of the claims alleged have merit. However, Defendant has
5 significant concerns as to whether some of the factual allegations asserted against it were done so
6 in good-faith and in compliance CCP § 128.7. For example, Plaintiff brings a Labor Code § 2802
7 claim contending she and all other non-exempt employees were not reimbursed for cell phone
8 expenses. See Compl. ¶ 22. Defendant finds such a claim, and continued filings in support of
9 such a claim, frivolous when Plaintiff is subject to a CBA that demands the payment of $25/month
10 for cell phone reimbursement and Plaintiff’s pay-records confirm she received such payments in
11 the workweeks where she performed work. Defendants sought (since as early as August 2022), and
12 will continue to seek, an informal resolution to its concerns regarding bad faith allegations but in
13 the interim it would like to reserve a mid-April hearing date on an anticipated CCP § 128.7 motion.
14 Moreover, Defendant may also use that mid-April hearing date to address a potential second
15 motion for judgment on the pleadings as Plaintiff seeks to prosecute a UCL claim that dates back
16 to June 16, 2018, despite all remaining violations driving such a claim being encompassed within
17 the class action release period associated with the Davis v. WeDriveU, Inc. class action settlement
18 whose release period ends on December 22, 2018. In other words, Plaintiff should voluntarily
19 agree that her class period commences no earlier than December 23, 2018. If she does not then
20 Defendant will seek judicial intervention on this issue to ensure the temporal scope of discovery is
21 appropriate.
22 Finally, Defendant may move to consolidate this Action with Plaintiff’s duplicative copy-
23 cat PAGA only Action currently pending in this Superior Court as 22 CIV-02810. Defendant will
24 seek an informal resolution to this issue but if one is not obtainable it will file a motion for
25 consolidation so it can be heard on the same mid-April hearing date requested above.
26 6. OTHER MATTERS
27 Defendant requests a stay on class discovery until: (1) its anticipated CCP section 128.7
28 motion is resolved; (2) anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings due to a facially overbroad
3
JOINT CASE MANAEMENT STATEMENT
1 class period is resolved; and (3) anticipated motion to consolidate this Action and Plaintiff’s
2 duplicative PAGA action. If the Parties are able to resolve the issues driving these anticipated
3 motions informally then can be ordered to submit a status conference statement within 3 days of the
4 informal resolution asking the Court to lift the stay of discovery. If no such informal resolution is
5 secured then the Court can lift the stay of discovery after the mid-April hearing. Defendant believes
6 this approach ensure no parties expends energy in needless discovery disputes on issues that the
7 Court may soon dismiss from the Action. Furthermore, this Action is related to Plaintiff’s own
8 copycat PAGA only action, 22 CIV-02810, (indeed the Federal Court order the matters related) and
9 discovery between the two cases must, at minimum, be coordinated to ensure the cases to not invoke
10 duplicative discovery.
11
12 Dated: January 31, 2023 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
13
14 By:
CHRIS BRAHAM
15
Attorneys for Defendant
16 WEDRIVEU, INC.
17
18
19
Dated: January 31, 2023 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK
20 DE BLOUW LLP
21
22 By:
23 Christine T. LeVu
24 Attorneys for Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
4
JOINT CASE MANAEMENT STATEMENT
Preview
1 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) 2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 3 Victoria B. Rivapalacio (State Bar #275115) Christine T. LeVu (State Bar #288271) 4 Andrew Ronan (State Bar #312316) 1/31/2023 2255 Calle Clara 5 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 6 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 7 Website: www.bamlawca.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 CHRISTOPHER A. BRAHAM (SBN 293367) 10 cbraham@mwe.com 11 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 2049 Century Park East 12 Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 13 Telephone: +1 310 277 4110 Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730 14 15 Attorneys for Defendant 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 17 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 18 19 PRECIOUS CHATMAN, an individual, on Case No. 22-CIV-02197 behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons 20 similarly situated, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 21 STATEMENT Plaintiff, 22 Date: February 6, 2023 vs. Time: 9:00 a.m. 23 Dept: 21 WEDRIVEU, INC., a California Corporation; Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foiles 24 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 25 Action Filed: June 2, 2022 Defendants. 26 27 28 1 JOINT CASE MANAEMENT STATEMENT 1 Plaintiff PRECIOUS CHATMAN (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant WEDRIVEU, INC. 2 (“Defendant”) (collectively the “Parties”), jointly submit the following Case Management 3 Conference Statement in connection with the Case Management Conference scheduled for 4 February 6, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. 5 1. STATUS OF PLEADINGS AND APPEARANCES OF NAMED PARTIES 6 All Parties have been served and have appeared. The Parties do not anticipate that additional 7 Parties will be added at this time. However, Plaintiff requests that the Doe Defendants remain 8 pending discovery in this matter and are not dismissed prematurely. 9 2. STATUS OF DISCOVERY 10 Plaintiff intends to serve discovery and intends on noticing the deposition of Plaintiff’s 11 PMK. Defendant was hopeful that the action could be resolved informally after the Federal Court 12 dismissed nearly half of the claims because they are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. 13 However, it appears that it will need to resolve the case through formal litigation and will be serving 14 discovery before the conference (with the understanding the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to said 15 requests may be stayed due to Defendant’s request denoted in Section 6 below). 16 3. STATUS OF SETTLEMENT OR MEDIATION 17 If Defendant is willing to provide informally production of payroll records, wage statements, 18 time records, the number of workweeks and the number of class members and its policies applicable 19 to the class members, Plaintiff would be happy to engage in early mediation. However, without a 20 proper analysis of the claims, Plaintiff would be unable to meaningfully engaged in mediation. 21 Defendant has no interest in mediating this case which is a copy-cat of an earlier class action 22 filed against it (Davis v. WeDriveU, Inc. – Santa Clara County Superior Court – Case No. 23 128CV322578) that was resolved on a class wide basis with a release period that eats into this 24 Action. 25 4. LISTING OF ALL PENDING MOTIONS AND PROPOSED NEW HEARING 26 DATES 27 There are no motions currently pending. 28 2 JOINT CASE MANAEMENT STATEMENT 1 5. ANTICIPATED MOTIONS 2 Plaintiff intends on filing a motion for class certification and proposes a date in March of 3 2024 for a hearing on her motion for class certification. 4 Defendant is confident none of the claims alleged have merit. However, Defendant has 5 significant concerns as to whether some of the factual allegations asserted against it were done so 6 in good-faith and in compliance CCP § 128.7. For example, Plaintiff brings a Labor Code § 2802 7 claim contending she and all other non-exempt employees were not reimbursed for cell phone 8 expenses. See Compl. ¶ 22. Defendant finds such a claim, and continued filings in support of 9 such a claim, frivolous when Plaintiff is subject to a CBA that demands the payment of $25/month 10 for cell phone reimbursement and Plaintiff’s pay-records confirm she received such payments in 11 the workweeks where she performed work. Defendants sought (since as early as August 2022), and 12 will continue to seek, an informal resolution to its concerns regarding bad faith allegations but in 13 the interim it would like to reserve a mid-April hearing date on an anticipated CCP § 128.7 motion. 14 Moreover, Defendant may also use that mid-April hearing date to address a potential second 15 motion for judgment on the pleadings as Plaintiff seeks to prosecute a UCL claim that dates back 16 to June 16, 2018, despite all remaining violations driving such a claim being encompassed within 17 the class action release period associated with the Davis v. WeDriveU, Inc. class action settlement 18 whose release period ends on December 22, 2018. In other words, Plaintiff should voluntarily 19 agree that her class period commences no earlier than December 23, 2018. If she does not then 20 Defendant will seek judicial intervention on this issue to ensure the temporal scope of discovery is 21 appropriate. 22 Finally, Defendant may move to consolidate this Action with Plaintiff’s duplicative copy- 23 cat PAGA only Action currently pending in this Superior Court as 22 CIV-02810. Defendant will 24 seek an informal resolution to this issue but if one is not obtainable it will file a motion for 25 consolidation so it can be heard on the same mid-April hearing date requested above. 26 6. OTHER MATTERS 27 Defendant requests a stay on class discovery until: (1) its anticipated CCP section 128.7 28 motion is resolved; (2) anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings due to a facially overbroad 3 JOINT CASE MANAEMENT STATEMENT 1 class period is resolved; and (3) anticipated motion to consolidate this Action and Plaintiff’s 2 duplicative PAGA action. If the Parties are able to resolve the issues driving these anticipated 3 motions informally then can be ordered to submit a status conference statement within 3 days of the 4 informal resolution asking the Court to lift the stay of discovery. If no such informal resolution is 5 secured then the Court can lift the stay of discovery after the mid-April hearing. Defendant believes 6 this approach ensure no parties expends energy in needless discovery disputes on issues that the 7 Court may soon dismiss from the Action. Furthermore, this Action is related to Plaintiff’s own 8 copycat PAGA only action, 22 CIV-02810, (indeed the Federal Court order the matters related) and 9 discovery between the two cases must, at minimum, be coordinated to ensure the cases to not invoke 10 duplicative discovery. 11 12 Dated: January 31, 2023 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 13 14 By: CHRIS BRAHAM 15 Attorneys for Defendant 16 WEDRIVEU, INC. 17 18 19 Dated: January 31, 2023 BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK 20 DE BLOUW LLP 21 22 By: 23 Christine T. LeVu 24 Attorneys for Plaintiff 25 26 27 28 4 JOINT CASE MANAEMENT STATEMENT