On March 28, 2022 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Chavez, David,
Robles, Anthony,
and
Bottling Group, Llc,
Cb Manufacturing Company, Inc,
Does 1-20,
Pepsico Beverage Sales, Llc,
Pepsico, Inc,
for Complex Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 21 8672
SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104
JESSICA CAMPBELL, State Bar N0. 280626
L. E?" ”A
rrgfk’é3AUFORNIA
NAMRATA KAUR, State Bar No. 338277 ‘éfiifififi 3 féiiglfié’ERNABmNo
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 ’i‘sAN BW’NAPD‘NO Om RICT
92618
WW
Irvine, California
OE T 1 x 2022
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 J/‘f
Email: icampbellzfflaegislawfirm.com
—-\ I ‘
3v O‘— V"
;,-v
M7;"‘4w'"_w;>
.
ROBWKE‘QZME‘E RI DEPUTY
_,
‘ '.,
vuv'r‘:
I
L-VU'M
’-
V
\DOONON
Attorneys for Plaintiff Anthony Robles, individually,
and 0n behalf of all others similarly situated.
10
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
13
14
ANTHONY ROBLES, individually and on Case N0. CIVSB2204715
behalf of all others similarly situated,
15 Assignedfor All Purposes t0:
Plaintiffs, Hon. David Cohn
16 Dept. S—26
V.
17
PLAINTIFF ANTHONY ROBLES’
18 PEPSICO BEVERAGE SALES, LLC; and OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, TO STAY ON THE GROUNDS OF
19 ANOTHER SIMILAR ACTION PENDING
Defendants.
20 Date: October 31, 2022
Time: 10:00 a.m.
21
Dept: 8-26
22
Complaint filed: March 28, 2022
23 Trial Date: TBD
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY ON THE GROUNDS OF
ANOTHER SIMILAR ACTION PENDING
I. INTRODUCTION
“Convenience of the courts is best served when motions to stay proceedings are
discouraged.” Avant! v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 888).
hereby opposes Defendant Pepsico Beverage Sales,
UI-fiww
Plaintiff Anthony Robles (“Plaintiff”)
LLC’s (“Defendant” or “Beverage Sales”) Motion t0 Stay on The Grounds of Another Similar
Action Pending (“Motion”) and requests the Court deny Defendant’s Motion in its entirety.
\OOONO‘x
A stay is improper because Defendant’s Motion fails to show how Plaintiff’s present class
action is fully subsumed by the cases pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court, entitled
Perez v. PepsiC0., Inc. and Bottling Group, LLC, Case No. 34-2021-00304956 and 34-2021-
10 00307352 (collectively, the “Perez Actions”). Fatal t0 its Motion, Defendant cannot make this
11 claim because there are key distinctions between the parties named in the Perez Actions and
12 Plaintiff‘s (“Robles Action”) Action. The named Defendants in the Perez Actions i.e., PepsiCo.
13 Inc. and Bottling Group, LLC have no involvement in the Robles Action, as the Robles Action
14 names Beverage Sales as the sole Defendant. In the present Robles Action, Plaintiff seeks relief
15 against only Beverage Sales and on behalf of a group of putative class members who worked for
16 Defendant Beverage Sales. Defendant’s Motion fails t0 show how PepsiCo., Inc. and Bottling
17 Group, LLC would bound the Robles Action to justify a stay.
18 Further, Defendant’s arguments regarding the primary rights theory and exclusive
19 concurrent jurisdiction are flawed and similarly improper given the differences in the Perez
20 Actions to the Robles Actions parties, relief, and subject matter at issue here. Accordingly, Perez
21 and Robles Actions are not substantially similar t0 justify a stay.
22 Additionally, Defendant admits that the Perez Actions are significantly further along in
23 the discovery process than the Robles Action and according t0 Defendant most of the discovery
24 documents which Plaintiff needs to analyze its claims and theories of liability has apparently
25 already been produced in the Perez Actions. If that is the case, then, the discovery produced in
26 the Perez Actions could easily be re-produced by Defendant in the Robles Action at little t0 n0
27
-1-
28
TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY ON THE
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
GROUNDS OF ANOTHER SIMILAR ACTION PENDING
Document Filed Date
October 18, 2022
Case Filing Date
March 28, 2022
Category
Complex Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 21 8672 SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104 JESSICA CAMPBELL, State Bar N0. 280626 L. E?" ”A rrgfk’é3AUFORNIA NAMRATA KAUR, State Bar No. 338277 ‘éfiifififi 3 féiiglfié’ERNABmNo 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 ’i‘sAN BW’NAPD‘NO Om RICT 92618 WW Irvine, California OE T 1 x 2022 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 J/‘f Email: icampbellzfflaegislawfirm.com —-\ I ‘ 3v O‘— V" ;,-v M7;"‘4w'"_w;> . ROBWKE‘QZME‘E RI DEPUTY _, ‘ '., vuv'r‘: I L-VU'M ’- V \DOONON Attorneys for Plaintiff Anthony Robles, individually, and 0n behalf of all others similarly situated. 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 13 14 ANTHONY ROBLES, individually and on Case N0. CIVSB2204715 behalf of all others similarly situated, 15 Assignedfor All Purposes t0: Plaintiffs, Hon. David Cohn 16 Dept. S—26 V. 17 PLAINTIFF ANTHONY ROBLES’ 18 PEPSICO BEVERAGE SALES, LLC; and OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, TO STAY ON THE GROUNDS OF 19 ANOTHER SIMILAR ACTION PENDING Defendants. 20 Date: October 31, 2022 Time: 10:00 a.m. 21 Dept: 8-26 22 Complaint filed: March 28, 2022 23 Trial Date: TBD 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY ON THE GROUNDS OF ANOTHER SIMILAR ACTION PENDING I. INTRODUCTION “Convenience of the courts is best served when motions to stay proceedings are discouraged.” Avant! v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 888). hereby opposes Defendant Pepsico Beverage Sales, UI-fiww Plaintiff Anthony Robles (“Plaintiff”) LLC’s (“Defendant” or “Beverage Sales”) Motion t0 Stay on The Grounds of Another Similar Action Pending (“Motion”) and requests the Court deny Defendant’s Motion in its entirety. \OOONO‘x A stay is improper because Defendant’s Motion fails to show how Plaintiff’s present class action is fully subsumed by the cases pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court, entitled Perez v. PepsiC0., Inc. and Bottling Group, LLC, Case No. 34-2021-00304956 and 34-2021- 10 00307352 (collectively, the “Perez Actions”). Fatal t0 its Motion, Defendant cannot make this 11 claim because there are key distinctions between the parties named in the Perez Actions and 12 Plaintiff‘s (“Robles Action”) Action. The named Defendants in the Perez Actions i.e., PepsiCo. 13 Inc. and Bottling Group, LLC have no involvement in the Robles Action, as the Robles Action 14 names Beverage Sales as the sole Defendant. In the present Robles Action, Plaintiff seeks relief 15 against only Beverage Sales and on behalf of a group of putative class members who worked for 16 Defendant Beverage Sales. Defendant’s Motion fails t0 show how PepsiCo., Inc. and Bottling 17 Group, LLC would bound the Robles Action to justify a stay. 18 Further, Defendant’s arguments regarding the primary rights theory and exclusive 19 concurrent jurisdiction are flawed and similarly improper given the differences in the Perez 20 Actions to the Robles Actions parties, relief, and subject matter at issue here. Accordingly, Perez 21 and Robles Actions are not substantially similar t0 justify a stay. 22 Additionally, Defendant admits that the Perez Actions are significantly further along in 23 the discovery process than the Robles Action and according t0 Defendant most of the discovery 24 documents which Plaintiff needs to analyze its claims and theories of liability has apparently 25 already been produced in the Perez Actions. If that is the case, then, the discovery produced in 26 the Perez Actions could easily be re-produced by Defendant in the Robles Action at little t0 n0 27 -1- 28 TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY ON THE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION GROUNDS OF ANOTHER SIMILAR ACTION PENDING