Preview
1 Timothy J. Long (SBN CA 137591) ENDORSFn
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
2 1201 K Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, (California 95814
3 Telephone: 916.442.1111 SEP ] 7 2019
Facsimile: 916.448.1709
4 longt@gtlaw.com By JlElder
Deputy Clerk
5 Jonathan S. Sack (SBN CA 271286)
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
6 Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
San Francisco, California 94111
7 Telephone: 415.655.1300
Facsimile: 415.707.2010
8 sackj(^gtlaw.com
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf of CASE NO. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly
14 situated, SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO
IPROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
15 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR WHY
PLAINTIFFS SPEARS AND ARANA'S
16 CASES SHOULD NOT PRdCEED AS PAGA
REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS
17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Califomia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, JUDGE: Hon. Alan G. Perkins
18 inclusive. DEPT: 35
19 Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 5,2017
FAC Filed: June 29,12017
20
Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017
21 Consolidated Complaint Filed:! Dec. 21, 2017
22
BY FAX
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT
PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS
1 TOM AS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated.
2
Plaintiff,
3
4 v.
5 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50,
6 inclusive.
7 Defendant.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 34.-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO (PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT
PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
2 On September 6, 2019, Defendant Health Net of California, Inc. ("HNCAj") served via electronic
3 mail a copy of HNCA's [Proposed] Order Denying Motions for Why Arana's and Spear's Cases Should
4 Not Proceed as PAGA Representative Actions on counsel for Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Spears") and
5 counsel for Plaintiff Tomas Arana ("Arana") and requesting their comments, as directed in the Court's
6 August 30, 2019 Minute Order ("Minute Order"). A true and correct copy of HNCA's [Proposed] Order
7 and the e-mail correspondence between the parties' counsel is attached as Exhibit 1.
8 On September 13, 2019, Spears's counsel responded via electronic mail with suggested revisions
9 to the [Proposed] Order, which HNCA construes as disapproval of the same as initially drafted and
10 transmitted by HNCA. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Spears's proposed revisions to
11 HNCA's [Proposed] Order.
12 As described below, HNCA's [Proposed] Order is fully consistent with the Court's ruling.
i: IL HNCA'S IPROPOSEDl ORDER IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULING.
14 The Court's Tentative Ruling denied HNCA's Motions for Why Arana's and Spears's Cases Should
15 Not Proceed as PAGA Representative Actions ("PAGA Motions") on the basis that "[t]he motions are not
16 authorized by a statutory procedure that eitlier provides the remedies requested or otherwise authorizes the
17 Court to now dismiss or adjudicate the PAGA claims." (8/29/19 Tent. Ruling re PAGA Motions, at p. 2.)
18 The Court's Minute Order affirmed the denial of the PAGA Motions but specifically "changes Ihe ruling
19 to make clear that it is deciding only that the court either did not have the power jto, or shouldn't, decide
20 the PAGA motions now, not that it is deciding that it could never do so." (8/30/2019 Min. Order re Pltf s'
21 Mtn. Class Cert., at p. 1 [emphasis added].) The Court also stated at the hearing that HNCA could challenge
22 Plaintiffs' PAGA actions at a later date and, if and when HNCA does so, HNCA could refile its previous
23 PAGA Motions. (8/30/19 Hearing, Rptr.'s Tr. 47:19-49:1). A true and correct copy of excerpts of the
24 transcript from the August 30, 2019 hearing is attached as Exhibit 3.
25 HNCA's [Proposed] Order is fully consistent with the Court's ruling. HNCA's [Proposed] Order
26 states succinctly:
27
28 3 CASENO. 34-2017-00210'560-CU-OE-GDS
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD
NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS
1. Based on the current stage of litigation in this action,
Defendant's Motions are unripe for decision. Accordingly
2 Defendant's Motions are DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3
2. Defendant may renew its Motions at a later date. Should
4 Defendant choose to renew its Motions, it need only incorporate its
previous filings by reference.
5
(Exhibit 1 at p. 3.)
6
7 No additional language is necessary to reflect accurately the Court's ruling on the denial of the
8 PAGA Motions. {See also 8/30/19 Hearing, Rptr.'s Tr. 48:12-17 [ The Court is "not deciding the merits
9 o f HNCA's motion, but rather is "deciding that now is not the proper time for" pe Court to decide the
10 motion styled as it is and where it is time-wise in the case. . . . or they are really denied without
11 prejudice."].)
12 IIL SPEARS'S RESPONSE TO HNCA'S IPROPOSEDl ORDER DEVIATES FROM
13 THE COURT'S RULING !
14 Spears proposed to modify HNCA's [Proposed] Order by adding language from the Court's
15 tentative ruling to suggest that the Court ruled that it lacked the authority to rule on HNCA's Motions at
16 any time. {See Exhibit 2 ["The motions are not authorized by a statutory procedure that either provides the
17 remedies requested or otherwise authorizes the Court to now dismiss or adjudicate the PAGA claims. The
18' Court denies the motion as to Arana's claims for these reasons even though he has not filed an
19 opposition."].) Spears's changes to HNCA's [Proposed] Order therefore contradict the Court's actual
20 rulings that: (a) the Court was not deciding the PAGA Motions at this time; and (b) HNCA could refile its
I
21 I
22 PAGA Motions at a later date. Spears's proposed revisions are inconsistent with the Minute Order and as
23 explained at the hearing. (8/30/19 Hearing, Rptr.'s Tr. 47:7-10 ["Well, I will change the tentative to at
24 least . . . make clear that I'm deciding only that the Court either didn't have the power or shouldn't
25 decide tlie PAGA motion now. . . . I'm not deciding that I could never do that."].)
26 //
27 //
28
CASE NO. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD
NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 For these reasons, HNCA respectfully requests that the Court enter HNCiA's Proposed Order as
3 proposed to Spears's and Arana's Counsel on September 6, 2019, and attached hereto as part of Exhibit 1.
4
5 DATED: September 17, 2019 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
6
7 By
Jonathan S. Sack
8
Attorneys for Defendants HEALTH NET OF
9 CALIFORNIA, INC.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 34-2017-002]0iS60-CU-OE-GDS
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD
NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS
I Andrai Spears, et al. vs. Health Net ofCalilbrnia. Inc.
Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2017-00210560
2
DECLARATION OF S E R V I C E
3
1 am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or
4 interested in this action. 1 am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California and my
business address is Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 1201 K Street, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814.
5
On this day, I caused to be served the following document(s):
6
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
7 MOTIONS FOR WHY PLAINTIFFS SPEARS AND ARANA'S CASES SHOULD NOT
PROCEED AS PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS
8
By placing Q the original | ^ a true copy into sealed envelopes addressed and served as
9 follows:
Norman Blumenthal
10 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & Attorneys for Plaintiff A ndr ;a Spears
BHOWMIK LLP
11 2255 Calle Clara
LaJolla, CA 92037
12 Email: norm@bamlawca.com
Telephone:(858) 551-1223
13 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
14- Shaun Setareh
William Pao Attorneys for Plaintiff To mos R. Arana
15 Alex Mcintosh
SETAREH LAW GROUP
16 315 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
17 Email: shaun^setarehlaw.com
wi 11 jamfifisc larch 1 :i vv. com
18 alexfSlsetarehlaw.com
Telephone: (310)888-7771
19 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
20 ^ BV M A I L : I am familiar with this firm's practice whereby the mail, after being placed
in a designated area, is given fully prepaid postage and is then deposited with the U.S. Postal
21 Service at Sacramento, California, after the close of the day's business.
22 [E] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: By transmitting a true and a correct copy
thereof attached to the electronic email address(es) as set forth above.
23
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24 foregoing is true and correct.
25 Executed on September 17, 2019, at Sacramento, California.
26
27 Marlene Celis
28
CASE NO. 34-2017-002 10560-CU-OE-GDS
PROOF OF SERVICE
EXHIBIT 1
1 Timotiiy J. Long (SBN CA 137591)
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
2 1201 K Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, Califomia 95814
3 Telephone: 916.442.1111
Facsimile: 916.448.1709
4 longt@gtlaw.com
5 Jonathan S. Sack (SBN CA 271286)
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
6 Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
San Francisco, Califomia 94111
7 Telephone: 415.655.1300
Facsimile: 415.707.2010
8 sackj@gtlaw.com
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf of CASE NO. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly
14 situated. [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR WHY
15 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS SPEARS AND ARANA'S
CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA
16 REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS
17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a JUDGE: Hon. Alan G. Perkins
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, DEPT: 35
18 inclusive.
Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017
19 Defendants. FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
20 Compliaint Filed: August 1,2017
Consolijiated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21,2017
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 CASE NO. 34-2017-00210S60-CU-OE-GDS
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS
1 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of hunself, all
others similarly situated.
2
Plaintiff,
3
4 V.
5 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Califomia corporation; and DOES 1 -50,
6 inclusive.
7 Defendant.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1 Defendant Health Net of Califomia Inc.'s Motions for Why Plaintiffs Spears and Arana's
2 Cases Should Not Proceed As PAGA Representative Actions came for hearing on August 30,
3 2019. The Court, having considered the papers submitted and the oral arguments of all parties,
4 ORDERS the following:
5. 1. Based on the current stage of litigation in this action. Defendant's Motions are
I
6
unripe for decision. Accordingly, Defendant's Motions are DENIED, WITHOUT
7
PREJUDICE. I
8
2. Defendant may renew its Motions at a later date. Should Defendant choose to
9
renew its Motions, it need only incorporate its previous filings by reference.
10
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13 DATED: BY:
14
HONORABLE ALAN G. PERKINS
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 CASE NO. 34-2017-00210S60-CU-OE-GDS
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA
ACTIONS i
Cells. Marlene (Secy-SAC-LT)
From: Piya Mukherjee
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 3:24 PM [
To: Sack, Jonathan S. (Assoc-SFO-Labor-EmpLaw); shaun@setarehlaw.com; AJ B
Cc: Long, Timothy (Shid-SAC-Labor-EmpLaw); Celis, Marlene (Secy-jSAC-LT); Yee, Myrna
(Secy-SFO-Labor-EmpLaw); william@setarehlaw.com; alex@setarehiaw.com
Subject RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer
Attachments: PROPOSED ORDER RE Motions re PAGA actions.docx
Jonathan,
Attached please find our redlined revisions to the proposed order which conform the proposed order to both the
tentative ruling (which was affirmed in the Court's 8/30/2019 Minute Order) as well as the Court's clarification as
specifically outlined in the 8/30/2019 Minute Order. I
I
Thanks, j
Piya
From: sackig>gtlaw.corii
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 4:28 PM
To: pivag)bamtawca.com: shaun@setarehlaw.com: AJ(S)bamlawca:com
Cc: longt(S)gtiaw.com: ceiismg)gtlaw.com: veem(5)Btlaw.com: william@setarehlaw.com; alex@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer
Thank you, Piya.
Attached is a proposed order on the PAGA claims per the Court's order at the August 30 hearing. Please let us know
your comments. We are reviewing the proposed order Piya circulated regarding class certification and will get back to
you with any comments.
Thanks.
Jonathan
Jonathan S. Sack
Assodate
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
4 Embarcadero Ctr, Ste. 3000 | San Francisco, CA 94111-5983
T+1 415 655 1318 | C 904 655 4253
sacknajqtlaw.com | www.qtlaw.com
GreenbergTraurig
From: Piya Mukherjee [mailto:piva@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Friday, September 6,2019 1:39 PM
To: Sack, Jonathan S. (Assoc-SFO-Labor-EmpLaw) : shaun@setarehlaw.com: 'AJ B
Cc: Long, Timothy (ShId-SAC-Labor-EmpLaw) : Celis, Marlene (Secy-SAC-LT) :
Yee, Myrna (Secy-SFO-Labor-EmpLaw) : william@S(etarehlaw.com: alex@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer
Tim and Jonathan,
I look forward to reconvening with both of you on Wednesday at 2:30 p.m. at which time Shaun jand I plan on discussing
the scope of the remaining discovery with respect to the PAGA claims that we would like in advance of the submission of
a trial plan, assuming the judge orders Plaintiffs to file one. j
Please also confer with your client regarding mediation at this juncture. As I mentioned, we can put the class notice on
hold as well as discovery and motion practice if we agree on a mediator and schedule a mediation.
Thanks,
Piya
From: sacki@gtlaw.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 9:25 PM
To: shaun@setarehlaw.com: ai@bamlavvca.com: piva@bamlawca.com
Cc: longt@gtlaw.com: ceiism@gtlaw.com; veem@gtlaw.com; willi'arn@setarehlaw.com: alex@setarehlaw.cbm
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer
Thanks for the quick replies. We'll circulate a calendar invite with a dial-in for this Friday at 1pm
Jonathan
Jonathan S. Sack
Associate
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
4 Embarcadero Ctr, Ste. 3000 | San Francisco, CA 94111-5983
T+1 415 655 1318 | C 904 6554253
aacl: ai@bamlawca.com; piva@bamlawca.com
Cc: Long, Timothy (ShId-SAC-Labor-EmpLaw) : Celis, Marlene (Secy-SAC-LT) :
Yee, Myrna (Secy-SFO-Labor-EmpLaw) ; William Pao ; Alex Mcintosh
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer
*EXTERNALTOGT*
I'm available on Friday in the afternoon.
Please include William and Alex from, m.y office on all communications.
Please advise.
Thanks
SLG SETAREH
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212
Telephone: 310-888-7771
Facsimile: 310-888-0109
e-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
Intemet sites: www.Setztrehlaw.com. www.TerminationAttbmev.net:
From: sacki@gtiaw.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 4,2019 4:17 PM
To: Shaun Setareh : ai@bamlawca.com; piva@bamlawca.com
Cc: longt@gtlaw.com: celism@gtlaw.com; veem@gtlaw.com
Subject: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer
Shaun, AJ, and Piya,
I'm working with Tim on this matter and am writing to schedule a call to meet and confer ( the proposed
over
order and trial plan on the PAGA claims. Tim and I are available this Friday from 11:30 to 3:30 and on Monday
from 12:30 to 4:30. Please let us know if you're available during either of these times.
Thank you.
Jonathan
Jonathan S. Sack
Associate
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
4 Embarcadero Ctr, Ste. 3000 | San Francisco, CA 94111-5983
T +1 415 655 1318 j C 904 655 4253
aaci
Preview
1 Timothy J. Long (SBN CA 137591) ENDORSFn GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2 1201 K Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, (California 95814 3 Telephone: 916.442.1111 SEP ] 7 2019 Facsimile: 916.448.1709 4 longt@gtlaw.com By JlElder Deputy Clerk 5 Jonathan S. Sack (SBN CA 271286) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 6 Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000 San Francisco, California 94111 7 Telephone: 415.655.1300 Facsimile: 415.707.2010 8 sackj(^gtlaw.com 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf of CASE NO. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS herself and on behalf of all persons similarly 14 situated, SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO IPROPOSED] ORDER DENYING 15 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR WHY PLAINTIFFS SPEARS AND ARANA'S 16 CASES SHOULD NOT PRdCEED AS PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS 17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Califomia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, JUDGE: Hon. Alan G. Perkins 18 inclusive. DEPT: 35 19 Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 5,2017 FAC Filed: June 29,12017 20 Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017 21 Consolidated Complaint Filed:! Dec. 21, 2017 22 BY FAX 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS 1 TOM AS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated. 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 v. 5 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50, 6 inclusive. 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 34.-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO (PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS 1. INTRODUCTION 2 On September 6, 2019, Defendant Health Net of California, Inc. ("HNCAj") served via electronic 3 mail a copy of HNCA's [Proposed] Order Denying Motions for Why Arana's and Spear's Cases Should 4 Not Proceed as PAGA Representative Actions on counsel for Plaintiff Andrea Spears ("Spears") and 5 counsel for Plaintiff Tomas Arana ("Arana") and requesting their comments, as directed in the Court's 6 August 30, 2019 Minute Order ("Minute Order"). A true and correct copy of HNCA's [Proposed] Order 7 and the e-mail correspondence between the parties' counsel is attached as Exhibit 1. 8 On September 13, 2019, Spears's counsel responded via electronic mail with suggested revisions 9 to the [Proposed] Order, which HNCA construes as disapproval of the same as initially drafted and 10 transmitted by HNCA. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Spears's proposed revisions to 11 HNCA's [Proposed] Order. 12 As described below, HNCA's [Proposed] Order is fully consistent with the Court's ruling. i: IL HNCA'S IPROPOSEDl ORDER IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULING. 14 The Court's Tentative Ruling denied HNCA's Motions for Why Arana's and Spears's Cases Should 15 Not Proceed as PAGA Representative Actions ("PAGA Motions") on the basis that "[t]he motions are not 16 authorized by a statutory procedure that eitlier provides the remedies requested or otherwise authorizes the 17 Court to now dismiss or adjudicate the PAGA claims." (8/29/19 Tent. Ruling re PAGA Motions, at p. 2.) 18 The Court's Minute Order affirmed the denial of the PAGA Motions but specifically "changes Ihe ruling 19 to make clear that it is deciding only that the court either did not have the power jto, or shouldn't, decide 20 the PAGA motions now, not that it is deciding that it could never do so." (8/30/2019 Min. Order re Pltf s' 21 Mtn. Class Cert., at p. 1 [emphasis added].) The Court also stated at the hearing that HNCA could challenge 22 Plaintiffs' PAGA actions at a later date and, if and when HNCA does so, HNCA could refile its previous 23 PAGA Motions. (8/30/19 Hearing, Rptr.'s Tr. 47:19-49:1). A true and correct copy of excerpts of the 24 transcript from the August 30, 2019 hearing is attached as Exhibit 3. 25 HNCA's [Proposed] Order is fully consistent with the Court's ruling. HNCA's [Proposed] Order 26 states succinctly: 27 28 3 CASENO. 34-2017-00210'560-CU-OE-GDS SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS 1. Based on the current stage of litigation in this action, Defendant's Motions are unripe for decision. Accordingly 2 Defendant's Motions are DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3 2. Defendant may renew its Motions at a later date. Should 4 Defendant choose to renew its Motions, it need only incorporate its previous filings by reference. 5 (Exhibit 1 at p. 3.) 6 7 No additional language is necessary to reflect accurately the Court's ruling on the denial of the 8 PAGA Motions. {See also 8/30/19 Hearing, Rptr.'s Tr. 48:12-17 [ The Court is "not deciding the merits 9 o f HNCA's motion, but rather is "deciding that now is not the proper time for" pe Court to decide the 10 motion styled as it is and where it is time-wise in the case. . . . or they are really denied without 11 prejudice."].) 12 IIL SPEARS'S RESPONSE TO HNCA'S IPROPOSEDl ORDER DEVIATES FROM 13 THE COURT'S RULING ! 14 Spears proposed to modify HNCA's [Proposed] Order by adding language from the Court's 15 tentative ruling to suggest that the Court ruled that it lacked the authority to rule on HNCA's Motions at 16 any time. {See Exhibit 2 ["The motions are not authorized by a statutory procedure that either provides the 17 remedies requested or otherwise authorizes the Court to now dismiss or adjudicate the PAGA claims. The 18' Court denies the motion as to Arana's claims for these reasons even though he has not filed an 19 opposition."].) Spears's changes to HNCA's [Proposed] Order therefore contradict the Court's actual 20 rulings that: (a) the Court was not deciding the PAGA Motions at this time; and (b) HNCA could refile its I 21 I 22 PAGA Motions at a later date. Spears's proposed revisions are inconsistent with the Minute Order and as 23 explained at the hearing. (8/30/19 Hearing, Rptr.'s Tr. 47:7-10 ["Well, I will change the tentative to at 24 least . . . make clear that I'm deciding only that the Court either didn't have the power or shouldn't 25 decide tlie PAGA motion now. . . . I'm not deciding that I could never do that."].) 26 // 27 // 28 CASE NO. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For these reasons, HNCA respectfully requests that the Court enter HNCiA's Proposed Order as 3 proposed to Spears's and Arana's Counsel on September 6, 2019, and attached hereto as part of Exhibit 1. 4 5 DATED: September 17, 2019 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 6 7 By Jonathan S. Sack 8 Attorneys for Defendants HEALTH NET OF 9 CALIFORNIA, INC. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 34-2017-002]0iS60-CU-OE-GDS SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS I Andrai Spears, et al. vs. Health Net ofCalilbrnia. Inc. Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2017-00210560 2 DECLARATION OF S E R V I C E 3 1 am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or 4 interested in this action. 1 am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California and my business address is Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 1201 K Street, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. 5 On this day, I caused to be served the following document(s): 6 SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 7 MOTIONS FOR WHY PLAINTIFFS SPEARS AND ARANA'S CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS 8 By placing Q the original | ^ a true copy into sealed envelopes addressed and served as 9 follows: Norman Blumenthal 10 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & Attorneys for Plaintiff A ndr ;a Spears BHOWMIK LLP 11 2255 Calle Clara LaJolla, CA 92037 12 Email: norm@bamlawca.com Telephone:(858) 551-1223 13 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 14- Shaun Setareh William Pao Attorneys for Plaintiff To mos R. Arana 15 Alex Mcintosh SETAREH LAW GROUP 16 315 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 17 Email: shaun^setarehlaw.com wi 11 jamfifisc larch 1 :i vv. com 18 alexfSlsetarehlaw.com Telephone: (310)888-7771 19 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 20 ^ BV M A I L : I am familiar with this firm's practice whereby the mail, after being placed in a designated area, is given fully prepaid postage and is then deposited with the U.S. Postal 21 Service at Sacramento, California, after the close of the day's business. 22 [E] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: By transmitting a true and a correct copy thereof attached to the electronic email address(es) as set forth above. 23 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 24 foregoing is true and correct. 25 Executed on September 17, 2019, at Sacramento, California. 26 27 Marlene Celis 28 CASE NO. 34-2017-002 10560-CU-OE-GDS PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT 1 1 Timotiiy J. Long (SBN CA 137591) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2 1201 K Street, Suite 1100 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 3 Telephone: 916.442.1111 Facsimile: 916.448.1709 4 longt@gtlaw.com 5 Jonathan S. Sack (SBN CA 271286) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 6 Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000 San Francisco, Califomia 94111 7 Telephone: 415.655.1300 Facsimile: 415.707.2010 8 sackj@gtlaw.com 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf of CASE NO. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS herself and on behalf of all persons similarly 14 situated. [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR WHY 15 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS SPEARS AND ARANA'S CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA 16 REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS 17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a JUDGE: Hon. Alan G. Perkins California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, DEPT: 35 18 inclusive. Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017 19 Defendants. FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 20 Compliaint Filed: August 1,2017 Consolijiated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21,2017 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 CASE NO. 34-2017-00210S60-CU-OE-GDS [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS 1 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of hunself, all others similarly situated. 2 Plaintiff, 3 4 V. 5 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Califomia corporation; and DOES 1 -50, 6 inclusive. 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 Defendant Health Net of Califomia Inc.'s Motions for Why Plaintiffs Spears and Arana's 2 Cases Should Not Proceed As PAGA Representative Actions came for hearing on August 30, 3 2019. The Court, having considered the papers submitted and the oral arguments of all parties, 4 ORDERS the following: 5. 1. Based on the current stage of litigation in this action. Defendant's Motions are I 6 unripe for decision. Accordingly, Defendant's Motions are DENIED, WITHOUT 7 PREJUDICE. I 8 2. Defendant may renew its Motions at a later date. Should Defendant choose to 9 renew its Motions, it need only incorporate its previous filings by reference. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 DATED: BY: 14 HONORABLE ALAN G. PERKINS 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 34-2017-00210S60-CU-OE-GDS [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR WHY CASES SHOULD NOT PROCEED AS PAGA ACTIONS i Cells. Marlene (Secy-SAC-LT) From: Piya Mukherjee Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 3:24 PM [ To: Sack, Jonathan S. (Assoc-SFO-Labor-EmpLaw); shaun@setarehlaw.com; AJ B Cc: Long, Timothy (Shid-SAC-Labor-EmpLaw); Celis, Marlene (Secy-jSAC-LT); Yee, Myrna (Secy-SFO-Labor-EmpLaw); william@setarehlaw.com; alex@setarehiaw.com Subject RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer Attachments: PROPOSED ORDER RE Motions re PAGA actions.docx Jonathan, Attached please find our redlined revisions to the proposed order which conform the proposed order to both the tentative ruling (which was affirmed in the Court's 8/30/2019 Minute Order) as well as the Court's clarification as specifically outlined in the 8/30/2019 Minute Order. I I Thanks, j Piya From: sackig>gtlaw.corii Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 4:28 PM To: pivag)bamtawca.com: shaun@setarehlaw.com: AJ(S)bamlawca:com Cc: longt(S)gtiaw.com: ceiismg)gtlaw.com: veem(5)Btlaw.com: william@setarehlaw.com; alex@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer Thank you, Piya. Attached is a proposed order on the PAGA claims per the Court's order at the August 30 hearing. Please let us know your comments. We are reviewing the proposed order Piya circulated regarding class certification and will get back to you with any comments. Thanks. Jonathan Jonathan S. Sack Assodate Greenberg Traurig, LLP 4 Embarcadero Ctr, Ste. 3000 | San Francisco, CA 94111-5983 T+1 415 655 1318 | C 904 655 4253 sacknajqtlaw.com | www.qtlaw.com GreenbergTraurig From: Piya Mukherjee [mailto:piva@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Friday, September 6,2019 1:39 PM To: Sack, Jonathan S. (Assoc-SFO-Labor-EmpLaw) : shaun@setarehlaw.com: 'AJ B Cc: Long, Timothy (ShId-SAC-Labor-EmpLaw) : Celis, Marlene (Secy-SAC-LT) : Yee, Myrna (Secy-SFO-Labor-EmpLaw) : william@S(etarehlaw.com: alex@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer Tim and Jonathan, I look forward to reconvening with both of you on Wednesday at 2:30 p.m. at which time Shaun jand I plan on discussing the scope of the remaining discovery with respect to the PAGA claims that we would like in advance of the submission of a trial plan, assuming the judge orders Plaintiffs to file one. j Please also confer with your client regarding mediation at this juncture. As I mentioned, we can put the class notice on hold as well as discovery and motion practice if we agree on a mediator and schedule a mediation. Thanks, Piya From: sacki@gtlaw.com Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 9:25 PM To: shaun@setarehlaw.com: ai@bamlavvca.com: piva@bamlawca.com Cc: longt@gtlaw.com: ceiism@gtlaw.com; veem@gtlaw.com; willi'arn@setarehlaw.com: alex@setarehlaw.cbm Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer Thanks for the quick replies. We'll circulate a calendar invite with a dial-in for this Friday at 1pm Jonathan Jonathan S. Sack Associate Greenberg Traurig, LLP 4 Embarcadero Ctr, Ste. 3000 | San Francisco, CA 94111-5983 T+1 415 655 1318 | C 904 6554253 aacl: ai@bamlawca.com; piva@bamlawca.com Cc: Long, Timothy (ShId-SAC-Labor-EmpLaw) : Celis, Marlene (Secy-SAC-LT) : Yee, Myrna (Secy-SFO-Labor-EmpLaw) ; William Pao ; Alex Mcintosh Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer *EXTERNALTOGT* I'm available on Friday in the afternoon. Please include William and Alex from, m.y office on all communications. Please advise. Thanks SLG SETAREH Shaun Setareh, Esq. 315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, Califomia 90212 Telephone: 310-888-7771 Facsimile: 310-888-0109 e-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com Intemet sites: www.Setztrehlaw.com. www.TerminationAttbmev.net: From: sacki@gtiaw.com Sent: Wednesday, September 4,2019 4:17 PM To: Shaun Setareh : ai@bamlawca.com; piva@bamlawca.com Cc: longt@gtlaw.com: celism@gtlaw.com; veem@gtlaw.com Subject: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Meet and Confer Shaun, AJ, and Piya, I'm working with Tim on this matter and am writing to schedule a call to meet and confer ( the proposed over order and trial plan on the PAGA claims. Tim and I are available this Friday from 11:30 to 3:30 and on Monday from 12:30 to 4:30. Please let us know if you're available during either of these times. Thank you. Jonathan Jonathan S. Sack Associate Greenberg Traurig, LLP 4 Embarcadero Ctr, Ste. 3000 | San Francisco, CA 94111-5983 T +1 415 655 1318 j C 904 655 4253 aaci