On August 03, 2020 a
Complaint,Petition
was filed
involving a dispute between
Battle, Naayshon,
Chavez, Maria,
and
Does 1 Through 10,
Telecare Corporation, A California Corporation,
for Employment - Complex
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
CM-015
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number‘ and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
_SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Catherine M. Dacre (SBN 141988), -
Jaclyn A. Gross (SBN 323933)
560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105 _
TELEPHONE No.: (415) 397—2823 FAX No (Optional) (415) 397-8549 SUPERIORFé-DIUEFET :‘A' I
E—MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): Ck p 0F SAN F%HN/{ngi‘gm
_‘_
"““ *"m’VA-HWNO 'J'STPJCT
TELECARE CORPORATION
ATTORNEY FOR (Name);
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO JUL 1,5 202:
STREET ADDRESS. 247 West Third Street
MA|LING ADDRESS: 8‘ I
m
CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Bernardino, CA 9241 5
BRANCH NAME:
CASE NUMBER'
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: NAAYSHON BATTLE & MARIA CHAVEZ CIVD82015794
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: TELECARE CORPORATION JUDICIALOFFICER:
Hon. David Cohn
DEPT.
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE $26
Identify, in chronological order according to date of filing, all cases related to the case referenced above.
1. a. Title: Chavez v. Telecare Corporation
b. Case number: R620064206
‘
w
c‘ Court: D same as above
E other state or federal court (name and address): Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland
d. Department: 21 .
e. Case type: D limited civil E unlimited civil D probate D family law D other (specify):
’
.
f. Filing date: 6/1 0/2020
g Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" E Yes D No
h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check a/l that apply):
E involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims.
E arises from the same or substantially identical transactions. incidents, or events requiring the determination of
the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.
D involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property.
X is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication ofjudicial resources if heard by differentjudges.
D Additional explanation is attached in attachment 1h
i. Status of case:
E pending
D dismissed D with D without prejudice
D disposed of by judgment
2. a. Title: Warren v. Telecare Corporation
b. Case number: RG21096006
c. Court: D same as above
E other state or federal court (name and address): Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland
d. Department: 21
Page 1 of 3
Form Approved for Optional Use Cal. Ru|es of Court. rule 3300
Judicial Council ofCalifornIa NOTICE OF RELATED CASE www couninfocavgov
CM~015 [Rev. July 1, 2007]
American LegalNeL Inc.
www FormsWorkflow.com
CM-015
CASE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF/PET|TIONER: NAAYSHON BATTLE & MARlA CHAVEZ CIVDSZO1 5794
DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: TELECARE CORPORATION
2. (continued)
e. Casetype: D limited civil E unlimited civil D probate D familylaw D other(specify):
f. FiIing datez4/1/2021
g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" K Yes D No
Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply):
h.
fi involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims.
events requiring the determination of
E arises from the sameor substantially identical transactions, incidents, or
the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.
same
D invo|ves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the property.
heard by different judges.
resources
E is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication ofjudicial
if
D Additional explanation is attached in attachment 2h
i. Status of case:
VA pending
D dismissed D with D without prejudice
D disposed of by judgment
Title: Warren v. Telecare Corporation (PAGA only)
Case number: HGZ1099839
.0 Court: D same as above
E other state or federal court (name and address): Alameda County Superior Court, Hayward
Department: 514
Case type: [:1 limited civil E unlimited civil E] probate D family law D other (specify):
Filing date: 5/4/2021
:sorhrvg
Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" D Yes E No
that apply):
Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check
al/
E invo|ves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims.
incidents, or events requiring the determination of
X arises from the same or substantially identical transactions,
of |aw or
the same or substantially identical questions
fact.
damages same property.
D invo|ves claims against, title to, possession of, or to the
resources heard by different judges.
to require substantial duplication ofjudicial
if
K4 is likely for other reasons
D Additional explanation is attached in attachment 3h
Status of case:
E pending
D dismissed D with D withoutprejudice
D disposed of by judgment
Number pages attached:
4. D Additional related cases are described in Attachment 4. of
M f
Date: July 15, 2021
_
k “b
M M_W,.W
,
x‘ ............ E: .....
D
Jaclyn A. Gross
,
(SIGNATURE 0F PARTY 0R ATTORNEY)
(TYPE 0R PRINT NAME 0F PARTY 0R ATTORNEY)
Pagezora
CM-o15[Rev. July 1, 2007]
NOTICE 0F RELATED CASE
American LegaINet, Inc‘
www FormsWorkfiow com
Document Filed Date
July 15, 2021
Case Filing Date
August 03, 2020
Category
Employment - Complex
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
CM-015 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number‘ and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY _SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Catherine M. Dacre (SBN 141988), - Jaclyn A. Gross (SBN 323933) 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 _ TELEPHONE No.: (415) 397—2823 FAX No (Optional) (415) 397-8549 SUPERIORFé-DIUEFET :‘A' I E—MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): Ck p 0F SAN F%HN/{ngi‘gm _‘_ "““ *"m’VA-HWNO 'J'STPJCT TELECARE CORPORATION ATTORNEY FOR (Name); SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO JUL 1,5 202: STREET ADDRESS. 247 West Third Street MA|LING ADDRESS: 8‘ I m CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Bernardino, CA 9241 5 BRANCH NAME: CASE NUMBER' PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: NAAYSHON BATTLE & MARIA CHAVEZ CIVD82015794 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: TELECARE CORPORATION JUDICIALOFFICER: Hon. David Cohn DEPT. NOTICE OF RELATED CASE $26 Identify, in chronological order according to date of filing, all cases related to the case referenced above. 1. a. Title: Chavez v. Telecare Corporation b. Case number: R620064206 ‘ w c‘ Court: D same as above E other state or federal court (name and address): Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland d. Department: 21 . e. Case type: D limited civil E unlimited civil D probate D family law D other (specify): ’ . f. Filing date: 6/1 0/2020 g Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" E Yes D No h. Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check a/l that apply): E involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. E arises from the same or substantially identical transactions. incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. D involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. X is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication ofjudicial resources if heard by differentjudges. D Additional explanation is attached in attachment 1h i. Status of case: E pending D dismissed D with D without prejudice D disposed of by judgment 2. a. Title: Warren v. Telecare Corporation b. Case number: RG21096006 c. Court: D same as above E other state or federal court (name and address): Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland d. Department: 21 Page 1 of 3 Form Approved for Optional Use Cal. Ru|es of Court. rule 3300 Judicial Council ofCalifornIa NOTICE OF RELATED CASE www couninfocavgov CM~015 [Rev. July 1, 2007] American LegalNeL Inc. www FormsWorkflow.com CM-015 CASE NUMBER: PLAINTIFF/PET|TIONER: NAAYSHON BATTLE & MARlA CHAVEZ CIVDSZO1 5794 DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: TELECARE CORPORATION 2. (continued) e. Casetype: D limited civil E unlimited civil D probate D familylaw D other(specify): f. FiIing datez4/1/2021 g. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" K Yes D No Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check all that apply): h. fi involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. events requiring the determination of E arises from the sameor substantially identical transactions, incidents, or the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. same D invo|ves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the property. heard by different judges. resources E is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication ofjudicial if D Additional explanation is attached in attachment 2h i. Status of case: VA pending D dismissed D with D without prejudice D disposed of by judgment Title: Warren v. Telecare Corporation (PAGA only) Case number: HGZ1099839 .0 Court: D same as above E other state or federal court (name and address): Alameda County Superior Court, Hayward Department: 514 Case type: [:1 limited civil E unlimited civil E] probate D family law D other (specify): Filing date: 5/4/2021 :sorhrvg Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" D Yes E No that apply): Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check al/ E invo|ves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. incidents, or events requiring the determination of X arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, of |aw or the same or substantially identical questions fact. damages same property. D invo|ves claims against, title to, possession of, or to the resources heard by different judges. to require substantial duplication ofjudicial if K4 is likely for other reasons D Additional explanation is attached in attachment 3h Status of case: E pending D dismissed D with D withoutprejudice D disposed of by judgment Number pages attached: 4. D Additional related cases are described in Attachment 4. of M f Date: July 15, 2021 _ k “b M M_W,.W , x‘ ............ E: ..... D Jaclyn A. Gross , (SIGNATURE 0F PARTY 0R ATTORNEY) (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME 0F PARTY 0R ATTORNEY) Pagezora CM-o15[Rev. July 1, 2007] NOTICE 0F RELATED CASE American LegaINet, Inc‘ www FormsWorkfiow com