On July 18, 2017 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
Johnson, Anthony,
Sadino, Aaron,
and
Boeshans, Patrick,
Di Pietro, Richard,
Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive,
Does 5 Through 50, Inclusive,
Dreisbach, Ryan,
Hewitt, Michael,
Propark America West, Llc,
Pro Park, Inc.,
Propark, Inc.,
Steele, John,
Willey, Tim,
for OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
1
Matthew Righetti, (State Bar No. 121012)
2 matt@righettilaw.com
John Glugoski, (State Bar No. 191551) ELECTRONICALLY
3 jglugoski@righettilaw.com FILED
Superior Court of California,
Michael Righetti, (State Bar No. 258541) County of San Francisco
4 mike@righettilaw.com
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 05/24/2019
5 Clerk of the Court
456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Deputy Clerk
6 San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 983-0900
7 Telefax: (415) 397-9005
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
12
AARON SADINO, individually, and on Case No. CGC-17-560186
13 behalf of all others similarly situated,
PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT
14 STATEMENT
Plaintiff,
15 Date: May 31, 2019
v.
Time: 9:30 a.m.
16 Dept. 305
17
PROPARK AMERICA WEST, LLC; JOHN
Complaint Filed: July 18, 2017
18 STEELE; MICHAEL HEWITT; RYAN FAC Filed: August 28, 2017
DREISBACH; and DOES 1 through 50,
19 inclusive,
20 Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Plaintiff Aaron Sadino (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits this Case Management Statement in
2 advance of the May 31, 2019 Case Management Conference.
3 I. UPDATE SINCE THE LAST CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
4 A. Plaintiff’s Statement
5
This is a wage and hour putative class action brought against ProPark America West on
6
behalf of all current and former California hourly-paid employees who performed parking/valet
7
services (including valet/parking attendants, cashiers and supervisors/foremen). The operative
8
complaint alleges generally that Defendants (both corporate and individually named defendants)
9
did not comply with meal period and rest break laws, and Plaintiffs and the putative class members
10
were not paid for all meal period and rest break premium wages to which they were entitled. It
11
also seeks derivative relief/damages, such as waiting time penalties, PAGA penalties, wage
12
statement penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
13
1. Pleadings Update
14
On March 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second Doe Amendment to add defendants Tim Willey,
15
Richard DiPietro and Patrick Boeshans. To date, these defendants have not filed an answer to the
16
complaint. If they have not filed an answer to the complaint by the time of the case management
17
conference, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order to show cause as to why default should
18
not be entered against them.
19
2. Mediation Update
20
The parties attended a second day of mediation on April 16, 2019 with Lou Marlin. It would
21
be a understatement to say that the mediation was unsuccessful. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff’s
22
counsel, Defendant arrived at the mediation with a second law firm, Littler Mendelson, to represent
23
them in this case. No progress was made at the mediation in light of Littler Mendelson’s counsels’
24
aggressive posture throughout.
25
3. Discovery Update:
26
Plaintiff has continued to diligently pursue discovery in this matter to prepare for the filing
27
of the motion for class certification. In December of 2018, Plaintiff commenced the deposition of
28
2
PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Defendant ProPark America West through Persons Most Qualified, Lori Daniel and John Steele.
2 Plaintiff completed the deposition of John Steele; however, the deposition of Lori Daniel was
3 adjourned in the afternoon because Ms. Daniel was not able to continue for personal reasons.
4 Defendant still has not been provided dates to complete the PMQ deposition despite being ordered
5 by the Court to do so on January 15, 2019 (See Case Management Order dated January 15, 2019).
6 Plaintiff deposed Senior Vice President Luis Garcia on April 22, 2019. Defense counsel
7 recently provided dates for further depositions. Plaintiff is awaiting a date for the deposition of
8 Peter Thorson, and Patrick Boeshans will be deposed on June 16. Defendant has not confirmed
9 that either of these witnesses will appear as a PMQ deponent.
10 4. Discovery Disputes
11 At the recent deposition of Luis Garcia on April 22, 2019, defense counsel produced several
12 hundred pages of additional documents, including highly relevant and critically important emails
13 between high-level executives of ProPark America West and Pro Park, Inc. (See Exhibit 1 attached
14 hereto.) Plaintiff cannot fathom why these documents were not produced earlier in response to
15 Plaintiff’s document requests and following several subsequent meet and confer meetings between
16 counsel, especially in response to the specific ESI document requests Plaintiff propounded with
17 specific word searches. The Court will recall that Plaintiff has had to request several discovery
18 conferences with the Court regarding Defendants’ failure to comply with discovery obligations.
19 This is another glaring example of Defendants callously disregarding their discovery obligations,
20 and Plaintiff requests that the Court take this issue up at the case management conference.
21 Plaintiff suggests that the Court revisit Defendant’s supplemental responses to RPD, Set
22 two, which were served on February 25, 2019 (See Exhibit 2, e.g. response to RPD 45 and 46).
23 Despite Defendant’s response indicating that “all non-privileged responsive documents” would be
24 produced “which address Defendant’s California meal period and rest period policies and
25 practices,” Defendant did not produce critically relevant and responsive emails until the day of Mr.
26 Garcia’s deposition two months later. And Mr. Garcia testified during his deposition that he had
27 not searched for any emails up until the week prior to his deposition. These developments strongly
28 suggest that Defendant is not fulfilling its obligations to search for and produce documents
3
PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. These are also documents that should have been
2 produced in response to Plaintiffs’ RPD with specific requests for emails containing specific
3 searches, and Defendant responded that all non-privileged documents would be produced. These
4 documents, however, were not produced, nor have other documents been produced from the other
5 individuals specified therein.
6 5. Class Certification
7 Plaintiff is preparing a motion for class certification. Plaintiff intends to proceed with the
8 filing of the motion pursuant to the briefing schedule set by the Cal. Rule of Court 3.764(c), unless
9 the Court orders Plaintiff to proceed in another manner.
10
DATED: May 23, 2019 RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
11
12
By: /s/ Michael Righetti
13 Michael Righetti
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14 AARON SADINO
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Preview
1 Matthew Righetti, (State Bar No. 121012) 2 matt@righettilaw.com John Glugoski, (State Bar No. 191551) ELECTRONICALLY 3 jglugoski@righettilaw.com FILED Superior Court of California, Michael Righetti, (State Bar No. 258541) County of San Francisco 4 mike@righettilaw.com RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 05/24/2019 5 Clerk of the Court 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 BY: JUDITH NUNEZ Deputy Clerk 6 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 7 Telefax: (415) 397-9005 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 12 AARON SADINO, individually, and on Case No. CGC-17-560186 13 behalf of all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT 14 STATEMENT Plaintiff, 15 Date: May 31, 2019 v. Time: 9:30 a.m. 16 Dept. 305 17 PROPARK AMERICA WEST, LLC; JOHN Complaint Filed: July 18, 2017 18 STEELE; MICHAEL HEWITT; RYAN FAC Filed: August 28, 2017 DREISBACH; and DOES 1 through 50, 19 inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Plaintiff Aaron Sadino (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits this Case Management Statement in 2 advance of the May 31, 2019 Case Management Conference. 3 I. UPDATE SINCE THE LAST CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 4 A. Plaintiff’s Statement 5 This is a wage and hour putative class action brought against ProPark America West on 6 behalf of all current and former California hourly-paid employees who performed parking/valet 7 services (including valet/parking attendants, cashiers and supervisors/foremen). The operative 8 complaint alleges generally that Defendants (both corporate and individually named defendants) 9 did not comply with meal period and rest break laws, and Plaintiffs and the putative class members 10 were not paid for all meal period and rest break premium wages to which they were entitled. It 11 also seeks derivative relief/damages, such as waiting time penalties, PAGA penalties, wage 12 statement penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. 13 1. Pleadings Update 14 On March 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second Doe Amendment to add defendants Tim Willey, 15 Richard DiPietro and Patrick Boeshans. To date, these defendants have not filed an answer to the 16 complaint. If they have not filed an answer to the complaint by the time of the case management 17 conference, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order to show cause as to why default should 18 not be entered against them. 19 2. Mediation Update 20 The parties attended a second day of mediation on April 16, 2019 with Lou Marlin. It would 21 be a understatement to say that the mediation was unsuccessful. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff’s 22 counsel, Defendant arrived at the mediation with a second law firm, Littler Mendelson, to represent 23 them in this case. No progress was made at the mediation in light of Littler Mendelson’s counsels’ 24 aggressive posture throughout. 25 3. Discovery Update: 26 Plaintiff has continued to diligently pursue discovery in this matter to prepare for the filing 27 of the motion for class certification. In December of 2018, Plaintiff commenced the deposition of 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Defendant ProPark America West through Persons Most Qualified, Lori Daniel and John Steele. 2 Plaintiff completed the deposition of John Steele; however, the deposition of Lori Daniel was 3 adjourned in the afternoon because Ms. Daniel was not able to continue for personal reasons. 4 Defendant still has not been provided dates to complete the PMQ deposition despite being ordered 5 by the Court to do so on January 15, 2019 (See Case Management Order dated January 15, 2019). 6 Plaintiff deposed Senior Vice President Luis Garcia on April 22, 2019. Defense counsel 7 recently provided dates for further depositions. Plaintiff is awaiting a date for the deposition of 8 Peter Thorson, and Patrick Boeshans will be deposed on June 16. Defendant has not confirmed 9 that either of these witnesses will appear as a PMQ deponent. 10 4. Discovery Disputes 11 At the recent deposition of Luis Garcia on April 22, 2019, defense counsel produced several 12 hundred pages of additional documents, including highly relevant and critically important emails 13 between high-level executives of ProPark America West and Pro Park, Inc. (See Exhibit 1 attached 14 hereto.) Plaintiff cannot fathom why these documents were not produced earlier in response to 15 Plaintiff’s document requests and following several subsequent meet and confer meetings between 16 counsel, especially in response to the specific ESI document requests Plaintiff propounded with 17 specific word searches. The Court will recall that Plaintiff has had to request several discovery 18 conferences with the Court regarding Defendants’ failure to comply with discovery obligations. 19 This is another glaring example of Defendants callously disregarding their discovery obligations, 20 and Plaintiff requests that the Court take this issue up at the case management conference. 21 Plaintiff suggests that the Court revisit Defendant’s supplemental responses to RPD, Set 22 two, which were served on February 25, 2019 (See Exhibit 2, e.g. response to RPD 45 and 46). 23 Despite Defendant’s response indicating that “all non-privileged responsive documents” would be 24 produced “which address Defendant’s California meal period and rest period policies and 25 practices,” Defendant did not produce critically relevant and responsive emails until the day of Mr. 26 Garcia’s deposition two months later. And Mr. Garcia testified during his deposition that he had 27 not searched for any emails up until the week prior to his deposition. These developments strongly 28 suggest that Defendant is not fulfilling its obligations to search for and produce documents 3 PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. These are also documents that should have been 2 produced in response to Plaintiffs’ RPD with specific requests for emails containing specific 3 searches, and Defendant responded that all non-privileged documents would be produced. These 4 documents, however, were not produced, nor have other documents been produced from the other 5 individuals specified therein. 6 5. Class Certification 7 Plaintiff is preparing a motion for class certification. Plaintiff intends to proceed with the 8 filing of the motion pursuant to the briefing schedule set by the Cal. Rule of Court 3.764(c), unless 9 the Court orders Plaintiff to proceed in another manner. 10 DATED: May 23, 2019 RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 11 12 By: /s/ Michael Righetti 13 Michael Righetti Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 AARON SADINO 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PLAINTIFF’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT