Preview
FILED
1 Timotiiy J. Long (SBN 137591)
Samuel S. Hyde (SBN 327065)
2 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1201 K Street, Suite 1100
3 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: 916.442.1111 By: ^-T^l^M.
4 Facsimile: 916,448.1709
longt@gtlaw.com
5' hydes@gtlaw.com
6 Rowena Santos (SBN 210185)
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
7 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
8 Telephone: 949.732.6500
Facsimile: 949.732.6501
9 santosr@gtlaw.com
10 Attomeys for Defendant
11 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
14 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No, 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
of herself and on behalf of all persons (Consolidated witii Case No, 34-2017-
15 similarly situated, 00216685-CU-OE-GDS) . LasfiCey
Cierl< ofthe Court, by:
, Deputy
TIMOTHY J LONG NORMAN B BLUMENTHAL
ORRICK HERIRNGTON ETC 2255 CALLE CURA
GREENBURG TRAURIG LLP LA JOLLA, CA 92037
1201 K STREET* 1100
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
SHAUN SETAREH
SETAREH LAW GROUP
315 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE #315
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Page; 1.
V3 1013a (June 2004) Code ol Civil Procsdurs , § CCP1013(a)
EXHIBIT B
1
2
3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
4 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
5 oOo
6
7 ANDREA SPEARS,
8 No. 34-2017-00210560
Plaintiff,
9
VS . Dept. 35
10
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA,
11 INC, .
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF
12 Defendants. STATUS CONFERENCE
13
14 oOo
15 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2 019
16 oOo
17
18 The a b o v e - e n t i t l e d m a t t e r came on r e g u l a r l y
19 at the date above s e t f o r t h before t h e HON. ALAN G.
20 PERKINS, Judge o f the Superior Court o f t h e State o f
21 C a l i f o r n i a , County o f Sacramento.
22
23
24
25
26
27 Reported by:
28 Burgundy B. Ryan, RPR, CSR No. 11373
1
2 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
3
4 For the P l a i n t i f f s :
5 RUCHIRAL PIYA MUKHERJEE, A t t o r n e y a t Law
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG, BHOWMIK, DE BLOUW, LLP,
6 2029 Century Park E 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
7 858-551-1232
8 SHAUN SETAREH, A t t o r n e y a t Law
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9 315 South Beverly Drive, S u i t e 315
Beverly H i l l s , C a l i f o r n i a 90212
10 877-777-3774
11 For the Defendant;
12 TIMOTHY J LONG, A t t o r n e y a t Law
YOON-WOO NAM, A t t o r n e y a t Law
13 GREENBERG TRAURIG
1201 K S t r e e t , Suite 1100
14 Sacramento, CA 95814
916-442-1111
15 "
16 oOo
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
1 MR. SETAREH: That i s p e r f e c t f o r me, your
2 Honor.
3 THE COURT: Mr. Long?
4 MR. LONG: That i s p e r f e c t .
5 MS. MUKHERJEE: That i s f i n e , your Honor.
6 MR. LONG: I f i t ' s p e r f e c t f o r Shaun, then t h a t
7 i s fine.
8 THE COURT: So December 18th.
9 MR. SETAREH: Thank you everybody.
10 THE COURT: A t 2:00 p.m. f o r a case management
11 conference t o discuss s t a t u s o f meet and confer e f f o r t s ,
12 um, regarding, um, we w i l l c a l l i t t r i a l p r e s e n t a t i o n
13 and management plan so we stay away from any term o f
14 art. The p l a n should — and the meet and confer e f f o r t s
15 should encompass questions 1 through 9 on t h e
16 supplemental case management q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r PAGA
17 cases w i t h the p r o v i s o , and I d i d n ' t make t h i s c l e a r
18 l a s t time, I'm asking f o r these questions t o be answered
19 w i t h regards t o the whole t h i n g , n o t j u s t t h e PAGA
20 cases. I t j u s t happened t h a t t h i s l i s t o f t o p i c s was,
21 um, a handy t h i n g t o have f o r PAGA cases.
22 And t o t h e extent there i s not overlap, um,
23 then, um, I a l s o want the meet and confer, um, t o
24 address, um, t h e issues o f questions 1 through 8 on t h e
25 t e n t i a t i v e r u l i n g fouhd a t r e g i s t e r o f a c t i o n s number
26 440, which was August 30, 2019. Um, there i s some
27 overlap, b u t , again, those questions are addressed t o
28 t h e whole case, n o t j u s t t h e PAGA o r j u s t t h e c l a s s .
31
1 And then l e t me also add, p l u s whether
2 i m p o s i t i o n o f time l i m i t s should, um, be done. And
3 then, l e t ' s see, a f i l i n g — oh — p l u s any other t o p i c s
4 regarding the mechanics o f t r i a l t h a t the p a r t i e s
5 request the Court discuss or consider.
6 And then unless a l t e r e d a t t h i s conference, t h e
7 filing date f o r P l a i n t i f f s would be, l e t ' s see, January
8 24, 2020, and then Defense, l e t ' s see, 30 t o 45 days,
9 um, so does March 6th work?
10 MR. LONG: That would be p e r f e c t . Thank you.
11 MR. SETAREH: Your Honor, may P l a i n t i f f s have
12 the o p p o r t u n i t y t o , um, respond t o Defendant's
13 statement?
14 THE COURT: Um, yes. And so then
15 Plaintiffs' ~
16 MR. SETAREH: Thank you.
17 THE COURT: — response March 20. Then case
18 management conference a t , l e t ' s say, A p r i l 3, 2020, a t
19 1:30 i n t h i s department, unless otherwise ordered. Um,
20 case management conference t o discuss elements o f t r i a l
21 management s t r u c t u r e and whether any motions should be
22 set i n t h a t regard.
23 And then, Mr. Long, I know you mentioned your
24 motions t o deny c e r t i f i c a t i o n and renew the PAGA
25 motions, um, I don't t h i n k they should be f i l e d on t h i s
26 date. There i s a l o t t o d i g e s t and depending on the
27 discussions t h e r e may need t o be d e c i s i o n s on some o f
28 these sub elements before any motion l i k e t h a t i s
40
1 CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
2
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO )
5
6 I , Burgundy B. Ryan, hereby c e r t i f y t h a t I am a
7 C e r t i f i e d Shorthand Reporter and t h a t I recorded
8 verbatim i n stenographic w r i t i n g t h e proceedings had on
9 Friday, September 27, 2019, i n the matter o f Andrea
10 Spears, P l a i n t i f f , versus Health Net o f C a l i f o r n i a ,
11 I n c . , Defendant, Case Number 34-2017-00210560,
12 completely and c o r r e c t l y t o the best o f my a b i l i t y ; t h a t
13 I have caused said stenographic notes t o be t r a n s c r i b e d
14 into typewriting, and pages 1 through 39, c o n s t i t u t e a
15 complete and accurate t r a n s c r i p t o f s a i d stenographic
16 notes taken a t the above-mentioned proceedings
17 I f u r t h e r c e r t i f y t h a t I have complied w i t h CCP
18 237(a) (2) i n t h a t a l l personal j u r o r i d e n t i f y i n g
19 i n f o r m a t i o n has been redacted i f a p p l i c a b l e .
20
21 Dated: Monday, October 28, 2019.
22
23
24
25
26
Burgundy B, Ryan, RPR, CSR
27 C e r t i f i c a t e No. 11373
28
EXHIBIT C
i
1 TIMOTHY J.LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591)
^lcing@orrick.com
2 NICHOLAS J. HORTON (STATE BAR NO. 289417)
nborton@orrick.com
3 ORRIC^ HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP DEC 2 r 2018
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
4 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Telephone: +1 916 447 8299 By, T. Eltfeir
5 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 . Oaputy Clerk
6 Attomeys for Defendant
7 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf, Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
of herself and on behalf of all persons CU-OE-GDS
11 similarly situated.
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JULIET L.
12
GRIMSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
V. AS TO WHY ARANA*S CASE SHOUtD
13
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC., a NOT PROCEED AS A PAGA
14 Califbmia Corporation; and Does 1 through REPRESENTATIVE ACTION
50, inclusive, Date: April 11,2019
is Time: 10:00 ajn. .
Defendants. Dept: 35
16 Jiidgd: Hon. Alan G. Perkins
17
18 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated. Complaint Filed: August 1,2017
ConsoUdated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21,2017
19 Plaintiff,
<
z 20
21
V.
(5 22
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Califorma corporation; and DOES 1-50,
OL inclusive.
23
Defendant.
o 24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JULIET L. GRIMSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
A.STO WHY ARANA'S rA.SRSHOiir.nrarvrpRfSrFpn AS 4 PAH* pRooBcrvTATixni *rTro-M
1
1. Juliet L. Grimson, hereby declare as follows: .
2
. 1. I am a Litigation Administration Specialist for Health Net. Inc. C^HNF'). I make
3
this declaration on personal knowledge and, if sworn as a witness, could competently testify to
4
the following facts except where otherwise indicated. ^
5
2. As part of my job duties, I receive documents that are served OD CT Corporation
6
System in. its capacity as HNl's agent for service of process.
7
3. OnoraboutMay 12,2017,1 received a service of process transmittal from CT
8
Corporation System, transmitting a copy of the legal process served on CT Corporation System in
9
its capacity as HNI's agent for service of process. The legal process transmitted to me by CT
10
Corporation System consists of a letter dated May 9,2017, addressed to HNI .and to the "PAGA
11
Administrator*' of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, fromtiieSetareh
12
Law Group. A true and correct copy of the service of process transmittal notice andjetter are
13
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
14
I declare under the penalQr of perjury under the laws oftiieState of Califomia that the
15
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this /jj^fli day bf December, 2018 at Wopdiand Hills,
16
California.
17'
18
19
Juliet L. Grimson
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
; DECLARATION OF JULIET L GRIMSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
ASTO WHV A R A M A ' S r A S R S H O t n n N r i T P P r V B B n AS & PAHA WWOPPCONTATnfn *r"rir»w
fin CT Corporation Service of Process
Transmittal
05/12/2017
TO: Juliet Grimson
a Log Number 53121B562
• Health Net, Inc.
21650 Oxnard St Ste 1560
Woodland Hills, U 91367-7803
RE: Process Served i n California
FOR: HEALTH NET, INC. (Domestic State: DE)
ENCLOSeO ASe e o n E B O F L E O A L P R O C E S S R B O E I V E D B V T H E STATUrORV AGENT OF THB ABOVE COMPANY AS FOIXOWSl
TITLE OP ACnOlta RE: California Labor and Workforce Development Agency / / To: Health Net, Inc.
OOCUMENT(8) SERVED: ' Letter, Attachment
COURT/AOENCVb None Specified
Case # None Specified
NATURE OF AOTIONi . Letter of Intent • Failure to provide meal periods
ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVEBi C T Cor^ratlon System, Los Angeles, CA
DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE! By Certified Mail on 05/12/2017 postmarited on 05/10/2017
JURISDICTION SERVED s California
AFPBARAMCE OR ANSWER DUBl Within 30 days
ATTORNEVCS) / SENDER(8)l Shaun Setareh . ,
SLG Setareh Law Group ^
9454 WILSHIRE BLVD
SUITE 907
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
(310)888-7771
ACTION ITEMBI CT has reuined the current log. Retain Date: 05/12/2017, Expected Puree Date:
05/17/2017 -
Image SOP. ^
Email Notification, Juliet Grimson'Jul1et.L.Grlmson®healthnet.com
SIONEDl C T Corporation System
ADDRESS: 818 West Seventh Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
TELEPHONE: 213-337-^15
Page 1 of 1 / MB
mronnatlon dhplayed en tMi tmunrittal l i for CT
Corporatlen^ record keeping purpoiei only and b provided (o
the reclptent for quick reference. Thb Infornutlan doat not
constitute a legal opinion as to the nature of action, the
amount of damages, the answer date, or any Information
eonbtlned in the documents thennelvn. Redplent is
reipansiUe for Interpreting said documents and for taking
•ppreprlBte action. Slgnatum'on certified mall receipts
confirm receipt of package onlyi not contents.
CERtlFltO'lVlMlL.. 1
SHAUN SBTARBH .
9494 WIISHIRE BLVD., Suite 907. ntowoaaiii
OeveftLT HILLS, CA 90313
70X3 1010 OODl IkSM 31MS
.iii,i{i|ii|iui|ii>iili|iU>l'i'niniwages.
(B) If an employer fails to provide an employee a rest period in accordance
with the applicable provisions of this Order, the employer shall pay the
employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of
compensation for each work day that the rest period is not provided.
In addition. Labor Code § 226.7 states:
(a) No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest
period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare
Commission. .
(b) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period in -
accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare
> Commission, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of
pay at the employee's regular rate ofcbmpemiation foreach work day that '
the meal or rest period is not provided. -
As a result of being improperly classified as exempt^ Arana and the aggrieved employees were
not provided all of their rest breaks to which they were entitied, . .
Health Net's written jx>licies failed to advise Arana and the aggrieved employees of their legal
rights to take rest periods in accordance with Califomia law. As a result of these policies and
practices. Health Net failed to provide Arana and the aggrieved employees with net rest periods
of at least ten minutes for each four hour work period, or major portion thereof, and have failed
to pay them premium wages at their regular rates of pay on workdays they failed to provide them
with required rest periods. Health Net's policies and practices lack adequate safeguards to ensure
that emplpyees are relieved of their duties for all required rest periods and are paid additional
wages when rest periods are not provided.
Accordingly, Arana now seeks civil penalties for these Labor Code violations that Health Net .
has committed against him and aggrieved employees as follows:
1. For all initial violations of Labor Code § 204, $ 100.00 for each aggrieved employee per
pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code § 210);
2. For all subsequent violations of Labor Code § 204, $200.00 for each aggrieved employee,
plus 25% of die amount unlawfully withheldfromeach aggrieved employee, per pay
period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code § 210);
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Inc.
May9,20I7Page7ofl8
3. For all initial violations of Labor Code § 223 that are deemed to be neither willful nor
intentional, $100.00 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each violation
. (penalties set by Labor Code § 225.5);
4. For all initial violations of Labor Code § 223 that are deemed to be either willful or
intentional, $200.00 foreach aggrieved employee, plus 25% ofthe amount unlawfully
withheldfromeach aggrieved employee, per pay period for each violation (penalties set
by Labor Code §225,5);
. , •
5. For all subsequent violations of Labor Code § 223, regardless of whether the initial
. violation of Labor Code § 223 is deemed to be either willful or intentional, $200.00 for
each aggrieved employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld from each
aggrieved employee, per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code §
225.5);
6. For all initial violations of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 1198, $ 100.00 for each aggrieved
employee per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code § 2699(f)(2));
and
1
7. For all subsequent violations of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 1198, $200.00 for each
aggrieved employee per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code §
2699(f)(2)). .
Failures to Pav Hourly and Overtime Wages
(Lab. Code §§ 204,223,510,1194,1197, and 1198)
Labor Code § 204 provides thai all wages (except as provided for under Labor Code §§ 201-
202) eamed by any person in any employment become due and payable twice during each
calendar month, on days designated in advance by the employer as the regular paydays, except
•' • • • •'. >
•
that wages eamed for labor in excess ofthe normal work period shall be paid no later than the
payday fdr the next regular payroll period.
Labor Code § 223 states,
Where any statute or contract requires an employer to maintain the designated
. wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretly pay a lower wage while purporting to
pay the wage designated by statute or by contract.
In relevant part. Section 2 of the Wage Order states,
"Hours worked" means the time during which an employee is subject to the
control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or
permitted to woric, whether or not required to do so.
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Inc.
May9,2017Page8ofl8
In relevant part, Section 4 of the Wage Order states,
(A) Every employer shall pay to each employee wages not less than seven dollars
and fifly cents ($7.50) per hour for all hours worked, effective Januaiy 1,2007,
and not less than eight dollars ($8.00) per hour for all hours worked, effective
January 1,2P08[.]
(B) Every employer shall pay to each employee, on the established payday for the
' period involved, not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked
in the payroll period, whether the remuneration is measured by time, piece,
commission, or otherwise.
In rekvant part. Labor Code § 1194 states,
(a) Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee
receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation
applicable to the employee is mtitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid
balance ofthe full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation,,
including interest thereon, reasonable attomey's fees, and costs of suit.
In relevant part. Labor Code § 1197 states.
The minimum wage for employeesfixedby the commission is the minimum wage
to be paid to employees, and the payment of a less wage than the minimum so
fixed is unlawful.
In relevant part, Labor Code § 1198 states.
The employment of any employee... under conditions 6f labor prohibited by the .
' [Wage Order] is unlawful.
In relevant part, Section 3 of the Wage Order states,
(A) Daily Overtime-. General Provisions •
(1) The following overtime provisions are applicable to employees 18 years of
age or over and to employees 16 or 17 years of age who are not required by law to
attend schPol and are not otherwise prohibited by lawfix)mengaging in the
subject work. Such employees shall not be employed more than eight (8) hours in
any workday or more than 40 hours in any workweek unless the employee
receives one and one-half (1 14) times such employee's regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 hours in the workweek, Ei^t (8) hours of labor constitutes
a day's work. Eniployment beyond eight (8) hours in any workday or more than
six (6) days in any workweek is permissible provided fhe employee is
compensated for such overtime at not less than:
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Inc.
May9,2017Page9of 18
(a) One and one-half (1 Vi)timesthe employee's regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of eight (8) hours up to and including 12 hours in any workday,
and for thefirsteight (8) hours worked on the seventh (7"*) consecutive day of.
work in a ^yorkweek; and
(b) Double the employee's regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 12
hours in any workday and for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours on the
seventii (7th) consecutive day of work in a workweek.
In conjunction, these provisions ofthe Labor Code require employers tp pay non-exempt
employees no less than their agreed-upon or statutorily mandated wage rates for all hours
worked, including hours spent working "off-the-clpck" (before punching in or afier punching out
on a time clock) when the eihployer knows or rieasonably should know that employees are
working during those hours. Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575, 585 (2000).
Payment For AU Hours Worked
As a result of being imoroperlv misclassified as exempt. Arana and the aggrieved employees
were not paid for all houra worked.
Overtime and Double Time
As a re^lt of being improperly misclassified as exempt, Arana and the aggrieved employees
were not paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked. Moreover, Arana and the
aggrieved employees were not paid double time compensation for all double time worked.
Arana and the aggrieved employees would woric ten or more hours each day and were not paid
overtime or double time compensation.
Regular Rate of Pay
The regular rate of pay under Califomia law includes "all remuneration for employment paid to,
on behalf bf, the employee.'^ O.L. 2002.06.14 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)). This requirement
includes, but is not limited, to, commissions and non-discretionary bonuses. See, e.g.,
Huntington Memorial Hasp. v. Superior Court, 131 Cal.App.4th 893,904-05 (2005).
In relevant part, Labor Code § 1198 states,
The employment of any employee... under conditions of labor prohibited by the
[Wage Order] is unlawful.
At all relevant times, Health Net violated the above-referenced Labor Code sections by failing to
pay Arana and the aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including, but not limited tp,
overtime hours. While employed by Health Net, Arana and aggrieved employees received.
hourly wages and other remuneration, including, but not necessarily limited to, non-discretionary
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Inc.
May9,20l7Pagel0ofl8
bonuses and/or other applicable remuneration that must be included when calculating their
regular rates of pay. However, Health Net consistently failed to include all applicable forms of
remuneration including, but not limited to, non-discretionary bonuses, when calculating their
regular rates of pay.
Specifically, Arana received periodic bonuses for the completion of certain projects. These
bonuses were paid to him by Health Net and should have been included in determiining his
regular rate of pay. However, Health Net has failed to include such bonus payments in
determining his regular rate of pay when paying premium wages for missed meal and rest
periods and overtime compensation.
Meal Periods
As a result of its failures to provide meal periods in accordance with Califomia law and to
accurately record the starting and stopping times of all work periods, Company failed to
compensate Arana and the aggrieved employees with all hourly and overtime wages for time
spent working during unpaid meal periods.
Off-the-Clock
During the applicable limitations period, Arana and the aggrieved employees had to work off-
the-clock because they were not paid for all hours worked including, but not limited to,.
the company failing to pay them fortimespent waiting to clock ih during.the regular course of
-business.
Specifically, Arana and the aggrieved employees were required to boot up their computers at the
beginning of each shift, log in with their credentials, wait for the computer tofinishbooting up,
and eventually start the program that would allow them to clock in for the day. This process
could take anywherefromfifteen(15) minutes to thirty (30) minutes daily - time whidi was not
paid by Healtii Net.
In addition, Arana and the aggrieved employees were directed by management to inaccurately
record all hours worked,' Specifically, Health Net directed its employees to utilize a rounding
practice thatroundstime to the next hour. For example, if an employee is scheduled to work at
9:00 a.m. and arrives to work late at 9:10 a.m., that employee is required tp round time to the
next hour - which wpuld be 10:00 a.m. even though that employee would be working from 9:10
a.m. through 10:00 a.m.
Accordingly, time spent working by Arana and the aggrieved employees were not accurately
record^ and they were not paid for all actual hours worked. j
Accordingly, Arana now seeks civil penalties for these Labor Code violations that Health Net
has committed against him and aggrieved employees as follows:
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Inc.
May9,2017Page ll of 18 .
1. For all initial violations of Labor Code § 204, $100.00 for each aggrieved employee per
pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code § 210);
2. For all subsequent violations of Labor Code § 204, $200.00 for each aggrieved employee,
plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheldfromeach aggrieved employee, per pay
period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code § 210);
3. For all initial violations of Labor Code § 223 that are deemed to be neither willful nor
intentional, $ 100.00 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each violation
(penalties set by Labor Code § 225.5);
4. For all initial violations of Labor Code § 223 that are deemed to be either willful or
intentional, $200.00 for each aggrieved employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully
withheld from each aggrieved employee, per. pay period for each violation (penalties set
by Labor Code §225.5);
5. For all subsequent violations of Labor Code § 223, regardless of whether the initial
violation of Labor Code § 223 is deemed to be either willful or intentional, $200.00 for
each aggrieved employee, plus 25% of the ainount unlawfully withheldfix>meach
aggrieved employee, per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code §
225.5);
6. For all initial violations of Labor Code § 510, $50.00 for each aggrieved employee per
pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code § S58(a)(l)-(2));
7. For all subsequent violations of Labor Code § 510, $100.00 for each aggrieved employee
per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code § 558(a)(l )-(2));
8. For all initial violations of Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1198, $100.00 for each aggrieved
employee per pay periodforeach violation (penalties set by Labor Code § 2699(f)(2));.
•) •
9. ' For all subsequent violations of Labor Code §§ 1194 and 1198, $200.00 for each
aggrieved employee per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code §
2699(f)(2));
10. For all initial 'violations of Labor Code § 1197 deemed to be intentional, $100.00 for each
aggrieved employee per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code §
.1197.1); and
11. For all subsequent violations of Labor Code § 1197, regardless bf whether the initial
violation is deemed to be intentional, $250.00 for each aggrieved employee pet pay
period for each violation (pmalties set by Labor Code § 1197.1 (a)( 1 )-(2)).
Failure to Pav Premium Wages at the Regular Rate of Pay
(Lab. Code §§ 223,226.7,512, and 1198)
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Inc.
May9,2017Pagel2ofl8
Labor Code § 223 states.
Where any statute or contract requires an employer to maintain the designated
wage scale, it shall be unlawful to secretiy pay a lower wage while purporting to
pay the wage designated by statute or by contract.
In relevant part. Labor Code § 512 states:
An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five
hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than
30 minutes, except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no
more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both
the employer and empilpyee. An employer may not employ an employee for a
work period of more than 10 hours per day without providing the employee with a
second meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours
worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal period may be waived by .
mutual consent of the employer and the employee only if thefirstmeal period was
not waived.
In relevant part. Section 11 of the Wage Order states,
(A) No employer shall employ any person for a work period of more thanfive(5)
hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except that when a work
period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day's work the meal
period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee.
(B) An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than ten
(10) hows per day without providing the employee with a second meal period of
not less than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is no more Uian 12
hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual 'consent of the employer
and the employee only if thefirstmeal period was not waived.
(C) Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30 minute meal period,
die meal p«iod shall be considered an "on duty" meal period and count^j as time
worked. An "on duty" meal period shall be pemiitted only when the nature of the
work prevents an employeefrombeing rdieved of all duty and when by written
agreonent between the parties an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The
written agreement shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the
agreement at any time.
(D) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period in accordance with
the applicable provisions of this order, the employer shall pay the employee one
(1) hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday
that the meal period is not provided.
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Inc.
May9,2017Page 13of 18
Labor Code § 226.7 states,
(a) No employer shall require any employee to work during any meal or rest
period mandated by an appUcable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission.
(b) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period in
accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the
employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's
regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not
provided.
The.regular rate of pay under Califomia law includes "all remuneration for employment paid to,
on behalf of, the employee.*' O.L. 2002.06.14 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)). This requirement
includes, but is not limited, to, commissions and non-discretionary bonuses. See, e.g.,
Huntington Memorial Hasp. V. Superior Court, 131 Cal.App.4tii 893,904-05 (2005).
In relevant part. Labor Code § 1198 states,
- The employment of any employee... under conditions of labor prohibited by the
. [Wage Order] is unlawful.
Health Net failed to pay premium wages to Arana and the aggrieved employees based on regular
rates of compensation correctly calculated to include all relevant remuneration, including, but not
limited to, non-discretionary bonuses. Instead, Heajth Net paid Arana and the aggrieved
employees premium wages based on their respective hourly rates of pay.
Accordingly, Arana now seeks civil penalties for these Labor Code violations that Health Net
has committed against him and aggrieved employees as follows:
1) For all initial violations of Labor Code Section 223 that are deoned to be neitiier willful
nor intentional, $100.00 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each violation
(penalties set by Labor Code Section 225.5);
2) For all initial violations of Labor Code Section 223 that are deemed to be either willful or
intentional, $200.00 for each aggrieved employee, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully
withheldfromeach aggrieved employee, per pay petiod foreach violation (penalties set
by Labor Code Section 225.5);
3) For all subsequent violations of Labor Code Section 223, regardless of whether the initial
violation of Labor Code Section 223 is deemed to be either willfiil or intentional, $200.00
for each aggrieved employee, plus 25% of-the amoimt unlawfully withheld from each
aggrieved employee, ^ r pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code
Section 225.5);
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Inc.
May9,2017Page l4of 18
4) For all. initial violations of Labor Code Section 226.7, $ 100.00 for each aggrieved
employee per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code Section
2699(f)(2));
5) For all subsequent violations of Labor Code Section 226.7, $200.00 for each aggrieved
employee per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code Section
2699(f)(2));
6) For all initial violations of Labor Code Section 512. $50.00 for each aggrieved employee
per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code Section 558(a)(1 )-(2));
7) For all subsequent violations of Labor Code Section 512, $100.00 for each aggrieved
employee per pay periodforeach violation (penalties set by Section 558(a)(l)-(2));
8) For all initial violations of Labor Code Section 1198. $ 100.00 for each aggrieved
employee per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code Section
2699(f)(2)); and
9) For all subsequent violations of Labor Code Section 1198, $200.00 for eacli aggrieved
employee per pay period for each violation (penalties set by Labor Code Section
2699(f)(2)).
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE WRITTEN WAGE STATEMENTS
Labor Code § 226(a) requires an employer to provide an employee, either semimonthly or at the
time of each wage payment, with an accurate and itemized written wage statement that shows: .
1. Gross wages eamed;
i. Not paid for all OT hours and hours worked, accordingly gross wages were -
not provided
ii. All applicable meal/rest break premiums not paid and so gross wages eamed
not accurate
iii. Time was rounded in unfair and unneutral manner therefore gross wages not
accurate
2. Total hours worked by die employee, except for any employee whose
compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exemptfrompayment of
overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any applicable order of the
Industrial Welfare Commission; .
i. Total hours worked failed to reflect all houriy and overtime hours worked
ii. Time was rounded in unfair and unneutral manner therefore total hours
worked not reflected
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Inc.
May9,2017Page.l5ofl8
3. The number of piece rate units eamed and any applicable piece rate if the
employee is paid on a piece-rate basis;
4. All deductions, provided that all deductions made on writien orders of the.
employee may be aggregated and shown as one item;
5. Net wages eamed,
i. Not paid for all hourly and overtime hours worked, accordingly net wages
were incorrect.
ii. Time was rounded.in unfair and unneutral manner therefore net wages not
accurately reflected
• iii. Applicable meal and rest break premiums not paid therefore net wages not
accurately reflected
6. The inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid,
7. The name of the employee and his or her social security number, except that by
Januaiy 1,2008, only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an
employee identification number other than a social security number may he
shown on the itemized statement;
8. The name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and
. . 9. All applicable houriy rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding
number of hours worked at each houriy rate by the employee.
i. correspondingnumber of hours worked incorrect
ii. corresponding number of overtime hours worked incorrect.
By failing to accurately record all hours worked, including the "off-the-clock" work described
above, by failing to pay employees meal and rest period prenuums in accoixlance with Califomia
law. Health Net has failed to provide Arana and the aggrieved employees with written wage
statements that comply withtiierequiremdits of Labor Code § 226(a). The wage statements of
Arana and the aggrieved employees have not accurately reflected their applicable rates of pay,
hours woiiced, and the amounts of their net and gross wages.
Accordingly, Arana now seeks civil penalties for Health Net's violations of Labor Code §
226(a) as follpws:
I. For all violations of Labor Code § 226(a) if a. civil actionfiledin accordance witii tiie
procedures set forth in Labor Code § 2699.3 results in an initial citation or its equivalent,
$250.00 for each employee for each violation (Labor Code § 226.3); or
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Ihc.
May9,20l7Pagel6ofl8
2. For all violations of Labor Code § 226(a) if a civil actionfiledin accordance with the
procedures setforthin Labor Code § 2699.3 results in a subsequent citation or its
equivalent, $1000.00 for each employeeforeach violation (Labor Code § 226.3).
LATE OR INCOMPLETE FINAL WAGES FOLLOWING SEPARATION OP EMPLOYMENT
Labor Code § 201 requires an employer to pay all eamed and unpaid wages to a discharged
employee immediately at thetimeof disdiarge.
Labor Code § 202 requires an employer to pay all eamed and unpaid \yages to an employee who
quits after giving at least 72 hours-notice all eamed and unpaid wages at the time of quitting.
Labor Code § 202 requires an employer to pay all eamed and unpaid wages to an employee who
quits after lesstiian72 hours-notice all eamed and unpaid wages within 72 hours of giving notice
of quitting. . '
Labor Code § 203 provides that an employee's wages shall continue as a penaltyfromwhen they
first became due at the same rate until paid for up to 30 days when an employer willfully fails to
timely pay all eamed and unpaid wages in accordance with Labor Code section 201 or 202.
By failing totimelyfumish Arana and aggrieved employees with anyfinalpaychedc and/or with
final paychecks that include all earned and unpaid wages, including, but not necessarily limitiBd
to, all eamed and unpaid hourly, overtime, and/or premium wag&. Health Net has violated Labor-
Code §§ 201 and 202.
Accordingly, Arana now seeks civil penalties for Health Net's violations of Labor Code §§ 201,.
202, and 203 as follows:
I . • . •
1. For ail initial violations of Labor Code §§ 201,202, and 203, $ 100.00 for each aggrieved
employee po-pay period for each violation (Labor Code § 2699(0(2)); and
2. For all subsequent violations of Labor Code §§ 201,202, and 203, $200.06 for each
a^ev^ employee per pay period for each viPlation (L^bor Code § 2699(f)(2)).
Under Califomia Labor Code § 256, the Labor Commissioner shall impose a civil penalty in an
amount not exceeding 30 days' pay as waitingtimeunder the terms of Section 203. Health Net
willfully failed to timely fumish Arana and aggrieved employees with anyfinalpaycheck timely,
and/or with final paychecks that include all eamed and unpaid wages, including, but not
necessarily limit«i to, all eamed and unpaid houriy, overtime, and/or premium wages, Health
Net has violated Labor Code §§ 201 202, and 203. Accordingly, the aggrieved employees sedc
to recover the wages and penalties of Section 256 on behalf of himself and other aggrieved
employees. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2699,2699.3, and 2699.5..
J
Labor and Workforce Development Agency / Health Net, Inc.
May9,2017Pagel7of18 >
Arana is an individual who was employed by Health Net in an hourly position withi
Preview
FILED 1 Timotiiy J. Long (SBN 137591) Samuel S. Hyde (SBN 327065) 2 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1201 K Street, Suite 1100 3 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916.442.1111 By: ^-T^l^M. 4 Facsimile: 916,448.1709 longt@gtlaw.com 5' hydes@gtlaw.com 6 Rowena Santos (SBN 210185) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 7 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 8 Telephone: 949.732.6500 Facsimile: 949.732.6501 9 santosr@gtlaw.com 10 Attomeys for Defendant 11 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 14 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Case No, 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS of herself and on behalf of all persons (Consolidated witii Case No, 34-2017- 15 similarly situated, 00216685-CU-OE-GDS) . LasfiCey Cierl< ofthe Court, by: , Deputy TIMOTHY J LONG NORMAN B BLUMENTHAL ORRICK HERIRNGTON ETC 2255 CALLE CURA GREENBURG TRAURIG LLP LA JOLLA, CA 92037 1201 K STREET* 1100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SHAUN SETAREH SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE #315 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Page; 1. V3 1013a (June 2004) Code ol Civil Procsdurs , § CCP1013(a) EXHIBIT B 1 2 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 5 oOo 6 7 ANDREA SPEARS, 8 No. 34-2017-00210560 Plaintiff, 9 VS . Dept. 35 10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, 11 INC, . REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF 12 Defendants. STATUS CONFERENCE 13 14 oOo 15 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2 019 16 oOo 17 18 The a b o v e - e n t i t l e d m a t t e r came on r e g u l a r l y 19 at the date above s e t f o r t h before t h e HON. ALAN G. 20 PERKINS, Judge o f the Superior Court o f t h e State o f 21 C a l i f o r n i a , County o f Sacramento. 22 23 24 25 26 27 Reported by: 28 Burgundy B. Ryan, RPR, CSR No. 11373 1 2 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 3 4 For the P l a i n t i f f s : 5 RUCHIRAL PIYA MUKHERJEE, A t t o r n e y a t Law BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG, BHOWMIK, DE BLOUW, LLP, 6 2029 Century Park E 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 7 858-551-1232 8 SHAUN SETAREH, A t t o r n e y a t Law SETAREH LAW GROUP 9 315 South Beverly Drive, S u i t e 315 Beverly H i l l s , C a l i f o r n i a 90212 10 877-777-3774 11 For the Defendant; 12 TIMOTHY J LONG, A t t o r n e y a t Law YOON-WOO NAM, A t t o r n e y a t Law 13 GREENBERG TRAURIG 1201 K S t r e e t , Suite 1100 14 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-442-1111 15 " 16 oOo 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 1 MR. SETAREH: That i s p e r f e c t f o r me, your 2 Honor. 3 THE COURT: Mr. Long? 4 MR. LONG: That i s p e r f e c t . 5 MS. MUKHERJEE: That i s f i n e , your Honor. 6 MR. LONG: I f i t ' s p e r f e c t f o r Shaun, then t h a t 7 i s fine. 8 THE COURT: So December 18th. 9 MR. SETAREH: Thank you everybody. 10 THE COURT: A t 2:00 p.m. f o r a case management 11 conference t o discuss s t a t u s o f meet and confer e f f o r t s , 12 um, regarding, um, we w i l l c a l l i t t r i a l p r e s e n t a t i o n 13 and management plan so we stay away from any term o f 14 art. The p l a n should — and the meet and confer e f f o r t s 15 should encompass questions 1 through 9 on t h e 16 supplemental case management q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r PAGA 17 cases w i t h the p r o v i s o , and I d i d n ' t make t h i s c l e a r 18 l a s t time, I'm asking f o r these questions t o be answered 19 w i t h regards t o the whole t h i n g , n o t j u s t t h e PAGA 20 cases. I t j u s t happened t h a t t h i s l i s t o f t o p i c s was, 21 um, a handy t h i n g t o have f o r PAGA cases. 22 And t o t h e extent there i s not overlap, um, 23 then, um, I a l s o want the meet and confer, um, t o 24 address, um, t h e issues o f questions 1 through 8 on t h e 25 t e n t i a t i v e r u l i n g fouhd a t r e g i s t e r o f a c t i o n s number 26 440, which was August 30, 2019. Um, there i s some 27 overlap, b u t , again, those questions are addressed t o 28 t h e whole case, n o t j u s t t h e PAGA o r j u s t t h e c l a s s . 31 1 And then l e t me also add, p l u s whether 2 i m p o s i t i o n o f time l i m i t s should, um, be done. And 3 then, l e t ' s see, a f i l i n g — oh — p l u s any other t o p i c s 4 regarding the mechanics o f t r i a l t h a t the p a r t i e s 5 request the Court discuss or consider. 6 And then unless a l t e r e d a t t h i s conference, t h e 7 filing date f o r P l a i n t i f f s would be, l e t ' s see, January 8 24, 2020, and then Defense, l e t ' s see, 30 t o 45 days, 9 um, so does March 6th work? 10 MR. LONG: That would be p e r f e c t . Thank you. 11 MR. SETAREH: Your Honor, may P l a i n t i f f s have 12 the o p p o r t u n i t y t o , um, respond t o Defendant's 13 statement? 14 THE COURT: Um, yes. And so then 15 Plaintiffs' ~ 16 MR. SETAREH: Thank you. 17 THE COURT: — response March 20. Then case 18 management conference a t , l e t ' s say, A p r i l 3, 2020, a t 19 1:30 i n t h i s department, unless otherwise ordered. Um, 20 case management conference t o discuss elements o f t r i a l 21 management s t r u c t u r e and whether any motions should be 22 set i n t h a t regard. 23 And then, Mr. Long, I know you mentioned your 24 motions t o deny c e r t i f i c a t i o n and renew the PAGA 25 motions, um, I don't t h i n k they should be f i l e d on t h i s 26 date. There i s a l o t t o d i g e s t and depending on the 27 discussions t h e r e may need t o be d e c i s i o n s on some o f 28 these sub elements before any motion l i k e t h a t i s 40 1 CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) 5 6 I , Burgundy B. Ryan, hereby c e r t i f y t h a t I am a 7 C e r t i f i e d Shorthand Reporter and t h a t I recorded 8 verbatim i n stenographic w r i t i n g t h e proceedings had on 9 Friday, September 27, 2019, i n the matter o f Andrea 10 Spears, P l a i n t i f f , versus Health Net o f C a l i f o r n i a , 11 I n c . , Defendant, Case Number 34-2017-00210560, 12 completely and c o r r e c t l y t o the best o f my a b i l i t y ; t h a t 13 I have caused said stenographic notes t o be t r a n s c r i b e d 14 into typewriting, and pages 1 through 39, c o n s t i t u t e a 15 complete and accurate t r a n s c r i p t o f s a i d stenographic 16 notes taken a t the above-mentioned proceedings 17 I f u r t h e r c e r t i f y t h a t I have complied w i t h CCP 18 237(a) (2) i n t h a t a l l personal j u r o r i d e n t i f y i n g 19 i n f o r m a t i o n has been redacted i f a p p l i c a b l e . 20 21 Dated: Monday, October 28, 2019. 22 23 24 25 26 Burgundy B, Ryan, RPR, CSR 27 C e r t i f i c a t e No. 11373 28 EXHIBIT C i 1 TIMOTHY J.LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) ^lcing@orrick.com 2 NICHOLAS J. HORTON (STATE BAR NO. 289417) nborton@orrick.com 3 ORRIC^ HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP DEC 2 r 2018 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 4 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: +1 916 447 8299 By, T. Eltfeir 5 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 . Oaputy Clerk 6 Attomeys for Defendant 7 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf, Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- of herself and on behalf of all persons CU-OE-GDS 11 similarly situated. Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JULIET L. 12 GRIMSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION V. AS TO WHY ARANA*S CASE SHOUtD 13 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC., a NOT PROCEED AS A PAGA 14 Califbmia Corporation; and Does 1 through REPRESENTATIVE ACTION 50, inclusive, Date: April 11,2019 is Time: 10:00 ajn. . Defendants. Dept: 35 16 Jiidgd: Hon. Alan G. Perkins 17 18 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated. Complaint Filed: August 1,2017 ConsoUdated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21,2017 19 Plaintiff, < z 20 21 V. (5 22 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Califorma corporation; and DOES 1-50, OL inclusive. 23 Defendant. o 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF JULIET L. GRIMSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION A.STO WHY ARANA'S rA.SRSHOiir.nrarvrpRfSrFpn AS 4 PAH* pRooBcrvTATixni *rTro-M 1 1. Juliet L. Grimson, hereby declare as follows: . 2 . 1. I am a Litigation Administration Specialist for Health Net. Inc. C^HNF'). I make 3 this declaration on personal knowledge and, if sworn as a witness, could competently testify to 4 the following facts except where otherwise indicated. ^ 5 2. As part of my job duties, I receive documents that are served OD CT Corporation 6 System in. its capacity as HNl's agent for service of process. 7 3. OnoraboutMay 12,2017,1 received a service of process transmittal from CT 8 Corporation System, transmitting a copy of the legal process served on CT Corporation System in 9 its capacity as HNI's agent for service of process. The legal process transmitted to me by CT 10 Corporation System consists of a letter dated May 9,2017, addressed to HNI .and to the "PAGA 11 Administrator*' of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, fromtiieSetareh 12 Law Group. A true and correct copy of the service of process transmittal notice andjetter are 13 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 14 I declare under the penalQr of perjury under the laws oftiieState of Califomia that the 15 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this /jj^fli day bf December, 2018 at Wopdiand Hills, 16 California. 17' 18 19 Juliet L. Grimson 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ; DECLARATION OF JULIET L GRIMSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ASTO WHV A R A M A ' S r A S R S H O t n n N r i T P P r V B B n AS & PAHA WWOPPCONTATnfn *r"rir»w fin CT Corporation Service of Process Transmittal 05/12/2017 TO: Juliet Grimson a Log Number 53121B562 • Health Net, Inc. 21650 Oxnard St Ste 1560 Woodland Hills, U 91367-7803 RE: Process Served i n California FOR: HEALTH NET, INC. (Domestic State: DE) ENCLOSeO ASe e o n E B O F L E O A L P R O C E S S R B O E I V E D B V T H E STATUrORV AGENT OF THB ABOVE COMPANY AS FOIXOWSl TITLE OP ACnOlta RE: California Labor and Workforce Development Agency / / To: Health Net, Inc. OOCUMENT(8) SERVED: ' Letter, Attachment COURT/AOENCVb None Specified Case # None Specified NATURE OF AOTIONi . Letter of Intent • Failure to provide meal periods ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVEBi C T Cor^ratlon System, Los Angeles, CA DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE! By Certified Mail on 05/12/2017 postmarited on 05/10/2017 JURISDICTION SERVED s California AFPBARAMCE OR ANSWER DUBl Within 30 days ATTORNEVCS) / SENDER(8)l Shaun Setareh . , SLG Setareh Law Group ^ 9454 WILSHIRE BLVD SUITE 907 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 (310)888-7771 ACTION ITEMBI CT has reuined the current log. Retain Date: 05/12/2017, Expected Puree Date: 05/17/2017 - Image SOP. ^ Email Notification, Juliet Grimson'Jul1et.L.Grlmson®healthnet.com SIONEDl C T Corporation System ADDRESS: 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 TELEPHONE: 213-337-^15 Page 1 of 1 / MB mronnatlon dhplayed en tMi tmunrittal l i for CT Corporatlen^ record keeping purpoiei only and b provided (o the reclptent for quick reference. Thb Infornutlan doat not constitute a legal opinion as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any Information eonbtlned in the documents thennelvn. Redplent is reipansiUe for Interpreting said documents and for taking •ppreprlBte action. Slgnatum'on certified mall receipts confirm receipt of package onlyi not contents. CERtlFltO'lVlMlL.. 1 SHAUN SBTARBH . 9494 WIISHIRE BLVD., Suite 907. ntowoaaiii OeveftLT HILLS, CA 90313 70X3 1010 OODl IkSM 31MS .iii,i{i|ii|iui|ii>iili|iU>l'i'ni