On October 04, 2021 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
Harper, Richard,
and
Does 1 Through 20,
Hamner Towing, Inc.,
for Complex Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Brian J- Mankin, Esq. [CSB N0. 2 1 6228] supamanCCEURT 0F CALIFORNIA
brian@lm[firm.com COUNTY 0F SAN BEHNARDINO
Kristina Bui Carlson, Esq. [CSB No. 294924] SAN BERNARD'NO DISTR'CT
kristina@[m[flrm.c0m
LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP MAY 3 1 2022
4590 Allstate Drive
Riverside, CA
92501
BY
Tel: (951) 320-1444
Fax: (951) 320-1445
.J LES. UTY
Attorneys for Plaintiff, on a representative basis and 0n behalf of all others similarly situated
Nicole M. Shaffer, Esq. [SBN 244366]
Chase E. Dean, Esq. [SBN TBA]
Kevin M. Erwin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive, #500
Irvine, CA 9261 8
10 949-885-1360
949—885-1380-fax
11
nicole.shaffer@jacksonlewis.com
chase.dean@j acksonlewis.com
12 kevin.erwin@jacksonlewis.com
Attorneys for Defendant HAMNER TOWING, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
RICHARD HARPER, individually, 0n a Case No.: CIVSB 2127523 ~
representative basis, and on behalf of all [ASSigned 10 H0” DaVid COh”, DePt 526,f0”
all purposes]
others similarly situated;
l9
Plamt‘ff’
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
20
21
22
HAMNER TOWING,
vs.
Comoration; and DOES
INC,
l
a California
through 20,
m
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Date; June
Time; 9;00 a.m_
9, 2022
inclusive; Dept.: $26
23
24 Defendants.
Complaint filed: 10/04/2021
25
26 Plaintiff Richard Harper and Hammer Towing, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and
27 through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this Joint Statement in advance of the
28 continued Case Management Conference set for June 9, 2022, at 9:00 am. in Department 826 of
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
_1.
the above-refercnced court.
Counsel for the Parties met and conferred to discuss the issues set forth in California
Rules of Court, Rule 3.750, as well as those raised in the Court’s Case Management Conference
Order, and hereby report as follows:
I. PROCEDURAL STATUS
Plaintiff filed his putative class action complaint on October 4, 2021. Plaintiff then
subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 6, 2021, t0 add causes of
action under the Private Attorneys General Act 0f 2004 (“PAGA”) after the 65-day exhaustion
period had elapsed. Defendant filed its Answer t0 the FAC 0n 0r about March 7, 2022.
10 II. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
11 The Parties have agreed to an early mediation, along with an informal exchange of
12 documents, data, and a sampling of timekeeping/payroll documents. However, the Parties are in
l3 the process of selecting a mediator and scheduling a mediation.
14 III. DISCOVERY STATUS
The Parties have previously jointly agreed t0 lift thc stay 0n discovery and t0 a Belaire—
l6 West notice to facilitate the exchange of information.
17 Plaintiff served his first set of written discovery on February 18, 2022, and Defendant
l8 served its responses 0n April 5, 2022. However, Plaintiff alleges that the responses are
19 incomplete and/or do not provide the requested information; and thus, the Parties have
20 commenced the meet and confer process in an effort to resolve the discovery dispute. That
21 process is still ongoing, and the Panies will provide an update on the progress (ifany) at the
22 hearing as both Defendant’s supplemental responses and transmittal of the data to the
23 administrator for the Belaire are due on May 27, 2022. Once Plaintiff is in receipt of Defendant’s
24 supplemental responses, Plaintiff is willing t0 further meet and confer with Defendant as t0
25 extensions as t0 any outstanding incomplete discovery responses.
26 IV. NEXT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
27 The Parties propose that the Court schedule the next case management conference in
28 approximately 120 days.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
-2.
Document Filed Date
May 31, 2022
Case Filing Date
October 04, 2021
Category
Complex Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Brian J- Mankin, Esq. [CSB N0. 2 1 6228] supamanCCEURT 0F CALIFORNIA brian@lm[firm.com COUNTY 0F SAN BEHNARDINO Kristina Bui Carlson, Esq. [CSB No. 294924] SAN BERNARD'NO DISTR'CT kristina@[m[flrm.c0m LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP MAY 3 1 2022 4590 Allstate Drive Riverside, CA 92501 BY Tel: (951) 320-1444 Fax: (951) 320-1445 .J LES. UTY Attorneys for Plaintiff, on a representative basis and 0n behalf of all others similarly situated Nicole M. Shaffer, Esq. [SBN 244366] Chase E. Dean, Esq. [SBN TBA] Kevin M. Erwin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, #500 Irvine, CA 9261 8 10 949-885-1360 949—885-1380-fax 11 nicole.shaffer@jacksonlewis.com chase.dean@j acksonlewis.com 12 kevin.erwin@jacksonlewis.com Attorneys for Defendant HAMNER TOWING, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RICHARD HARPER, individually, 0n a Case No.: CIVSB 2127523 ~ representative basis, and on behalf of all [ASSigned 10 H0” DaVid COh”, DePt 526,f0” all purposes] others similarly situated; l9 Plamt‘ff’ JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 20 21 22 HAMNER TOWING, vs. Comoration; and DOES INC, l a California through 20, m CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date; June Time; 9;00 a.m_ 9, 2022 inclusive; Dept.: $26 23 24 Defendants. Complaint filed: 10/04/2021 25 26 Plaintiff Richard Harper and Hammer Towing, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and 27 through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this Joint Statement in advance of the 28 continued Case Management Conference set for June 9, 2022, at 9:00 am. in Department 826 of JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT _1. the above-refercnced court. Counsel for the Parties met and conferred to discuss the issues set forth in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.750, as well as those raised in the Court’s Case Management Conference Order, and hereby report as follows: I. PROCEDURAL STATUS Plaintiff filed his putative class action complaint on October 4, 2021. Plaintiff then subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 6, 2021, t0 add causes of action under the Private Attorneys General Act 0f 2004 (“PAGA”) after the 65-day exhaustion period had elapsed. Defendant filed its Answer t0 the FAC 0n 0r about March 7, 2022. 10 II. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 11 The Parties have agreed to an early mediation, along with an informal exchange of 12 documents, data, and a sampling of timekeeping/payroll documents. However, the Parties are in l3 the process of selecting a mediator and scheduling a mediation. 14 III. DISCOVERY STATUS The Parties have previously jointly agreed t0 lift thc stay 0n discovery and t0 a Belaire— l6 West notice to facilitate the exchange of information. 17 Plaintiff served his first set of written discovery on February 18, 2022, and Defendant l8 served its responses 0n April 5, 2022. However, Plaintiff alleges that the responses are 19 incomplete and/or do not provide the requested information; and thus, the Parties have 20 commenced the meet and confer process in an effort to resolve the discovery dispute. That 21 process is still ongoing, and the Panies will provide an update on the progress (ifany) at the 22 hearing as both Defendant’s supplemental responses and transmittal of the data to the 23 administrator for the Belaire are due on May 27, 2022. Once Plaintiff is in receipt of Defendant’s 24 supplemental responses, Plaintiff is willing t0 further meet and confer with Defendant as t0 25 extensions as t0 any outstanding incomplete discovery responses. 26 IV. NEXT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 27 The Parties propose that the Court schedule the next case management conference in 28 approximately 120 days. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT -2.