Preview
Alden J. Parker (SBN 196808)
E-Mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com
?ax
Gregory L. Blueford (SBN 302628)
5;;j,\;~fim‘}j\ I 4.
E-Mail: gblueford@fisherphillips.com
C011fii§fy‘5E?g‘,
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP SAN BERN.
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
Sacramento, California 95814
JUN
x
o am”
by
Telephone: (916) 210-0400 {j 0 5W
Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
m
m’
.
3
\m‘i z. {rm Vl ”‘3
Attorneys for Defendant ?'WC’CLV..EE‘NE§7?§
F%le
COMAV TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC N v
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CIVIL DIVISION -
10
11 HECTOR RAMIREZ, on behalf ofhimself and CASE NO.: CIVSB2028890
all others similarly situated, [Complex Case]
12
Plaintiffs, Assignedfor allpurposes to Honorable Judge
13 David Cohn, Dept. S—26
V.
14
COMAV TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC, a DEFENDANT COMAV TECHNICAL
15 Delaware limited liability company; and DOES SERVICES, LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF
1 through 100, Inclusive, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
16 OF MOTION TO STAY
Defendants.
17
DATE: August 23, 2021
18 TIME: 10:00 a.m.
DEPT: S-26
19
20 Complaint Filed: December 23, 2020
Trial Date: Not Set
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
l
DEFENDANT COMAV TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC’S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff Hector Ramirez (“Ramirez”) filed a first amended class action
complaint (“Ramirez Action”) against ComAv Technical Services, LLC (“ComAv” 0r “Defendant”)
seeking recovery ofdamages on behalfof himselfand the putative class members and for civil penalties
pursuant t0 Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”). Ramirez’s original complaint was filed on
December 23, 2020.
Notably, however, another employee 0f ComAv has already brought a purported class and
representative action in California for the same exact class action damages and PAGA penalties and fully
encompassing the statutory period at issue here. Specifically, on January 4, 2021, over three months
10
prior t0 the filing 0fthe Ramirez Action, Shawn Lee (“Lee”) filed his lawsuit in this same Court entitled
11
Shawn Lee v. ComAv Technical Services, LLC, San Bernardino County Case No. CIVD82021583 (“Lee
12
Action”). Lee filed his original complaint 0n October 6, 2020. (See Req. for Judicial
Notice (“RJN”) fl
13
1, Ex. A). Like the Ramirez Action, the Lee action is a class and representative lawsuit and is predicated
14
on the exact and identical alleged wage and hour violations as those alleged in the Ramirez Action.
15
Consequently, the Ramirez Action is duplicative 0fthe earlier filed Lee Action and involves the same
(i)
16 parties (the same putative class members and aggrieved employees and the State of California), (ii) the
17 same Defendant, the same causes ofaction, and
(iii) (iv) the same remedies for the same statutory period.
18 It is almost as ifRamirez copy and pasted the Lee Complaint and hit send. Thus, there is no valid purpose
19 can be served by allowing these two identical actions to be concurrently litigated.
20 T0 that end, Defendant has already been actively litigating the Lee matter, including negotiating
21 the Belaire West notice to be sent to aggrieved employees in connection therewith and have
exchanged
22 written discovery along with meet and confer letters regarding the same. (Declaration of Gregory L.
23 Blueford (“Blueford Decl.”), W2— 5.) The Parties in the Lee Action have also already agreed t0 pursue
24 resolution ofthe matter through private mediation. (Blueford Decl., 4.) Thus, to not stay this action
1]
25 would result in great prejudice to Defendant by requiring duplication of efforts, reducing the potential
26 amount available for recovery and enhancement fees, and diminishing the likelihood of potential
27 resolution in the Lee Action. This is contrary t0 all considerations ofjudicial economy. Therefore, this
28 Court should exercise its discretionary power and stay this action.
2
DEFENDANT COMAV TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC’S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
Preview
Alden J. Parker (SBN 196808) E-Mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com ?ax Gregory L. Blueford (SBN 302628) 5;;j,\;~fim‘}j\ I 4. E-Mail: gblueford@fisherphillips.com C011fii§fy‘5E?g‘, FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP SAN BERN. 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400 Sacramento, California 95814 JUN x o am” by Telephone: (916) 210-0400 {j 0 5W Facsimile: (916) 210-0401 m m’ . 3 \m‘i z. {rm Vl ”‘3 Attorneys for Defendant ?'WC’CLV..EE‘NE§7?§ F%le COMAV TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC N v SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO CIVIL DIVISION - 10 11 HECTOR RAMIREZ, on behalf ofhimself and CASE NO.: CIVSB2028890 all others similarly situated, [Complex Case] 12 Plaintiffs, Assignedfor allpurposes to Honorable Judge 13 David Cohn, Dept. S—26 V. 14 COMAV TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC, a DEFENDANT COMAV TECHNICAL 15 Delaware limited liability company; and DOES SERVICES, LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF 1 through 100, Inclusive, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 16 OF MOTION TO STAY Defendants. 17 DATE: August 23, 2021 18 TIME: 10:00 a.m. DEPT: S-26 19 20 Complaint Filed: December 23, 2020 Trial Date: Not Set 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 l DEFENDANT COMAV TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff Hector Ramirez (“Ramirez”) filed a first amended class action complaint (“Ramirez Action”) against ComAv Technical Services, LLC (“ComAv” 0r “Defendant”) seeking recovery ofdamages on behalfof himselfand the putative class members and for civil penalties pursuant t0 Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”). Ramirez’s original complaint was filed on December 23, 2020. Notably, however, another employee 0f ComAv has already brought a purported class and representative action in California for the same exact class action damages and PAGA penalties and fully encompassing the statutory period at issue here. Specifically, on January 4, 2021, over three months 10 prior t0 the filing 0fthe Ramirez Action, Shawn Lee (“Lee”) filed his lawsuit in this same Court entitled 11 Shawn Lee v. ComAv Technical Services, LLC, San Bernardino County Case No. CIVD82021583 (“Lee 12 Action”). Lee filed his original complaint 0n October 6, 2020. (See Req. for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) fl 13 1, Ex. A). Like the Ramirez Action, the Lee action is a class and representative lawsuit and is predicated 14 on the exact and identical alleged wage and hour violations as those alleged in the Ramirez Action. 15 Consequently, the Ramirez Action is duplicative 0fthe earlier filed Lee Action and involves the same (i) 16 parties (the same putative class members and aggrieved employees and the State of California), (ii) the 17 same Defendant, the same causes ofaction, and (iii) (iv) the same remedies for the same statutory period. 18 It is almost as ifRamirez copy and pasted the Lee Complaint and hit send. Thus, there is no valid purpose 19 can be served by allowing these two identical actions to be concurrently litigated. 20 T0 that end, Defendant has already been actively litigating the Lee matter, including negotiating 21 the Belaire West notice to be sent to aggrieved employees in connection therewith and have exchanged 22 written discovery along with meet and confer letters regarding the same. (Declaration of Gregory L. 23 Blueford (“Blueford Decl.”), W2— 5.) The Parties in the Lee Action have also already agreed t0 pursue 24 resolution ofthe matter through private mediation. (Blueford Decl., 4.) Thus, to not stay this action 1] 25 would result in great prejudice to Defendant by requiring duplication of efforts, reducing the potential 26 amount available for recovery and enhancement fees, and diminishing the likelihood of potential 27 resolution in the Lee Action. This is contrary t0 all considerations ofjudicial economy. Therefore, this 28 Court should exercise its discretionary power and stay this action. 2 DEFENDANT COMAV TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY