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
\a \r
F I L E D
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BEHNARDINO
SAN BEHNARDINO DISTRICT
Brian J. Mankin, Esq. [CSB No. 216228]
briangéflmlfzrmflom FEB 0 2 2022
Kristina Bui Carlson, Esq. [CSB No. 294924]
kristina (Dim! irm.com
LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP
4590 Allstate Drive
Riverside, CA
92501
Tel: (951) 320-1444
Fax: (951) 320-1445
Attorneys for Plaintiff, on a representative basis and on 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 92618
10 949-885-1360
949-885-1380-fax
11
nicoleshaflbrfi)iackson]cwis.com
chasedeanflifiacksonlewis.com
12
kevinerwina’macksonlewis.com
13
Attorneys for Defendant HAMNER TOWING, INC.
14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
16
17 RICHARD HARPER, individually, 0n a Case'No; CIVSB 2127523
representative basis, and on behalf of all [ASSlgned t0 H0”. DaVld COhn, Dept 526Jf0"
18
others similarly situated; allpurposesj
19
Plaintiffl
JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
20 CONFERENCE STATEMENT
vs.
21
22
HAMNER TOWING, INC., a California Mg
Date; February 8, 2022
Corporation; and DOES l through 20, Time; 9:00 am,
inclusive;
23 Dept: $26
24 Defendants.
Complaint filed: 10/04/2021
25
26 Plaintiff Richard Harper and Hamner Towing, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and
27 through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this Joint Statement in advance of the Initial
28 Case Management Conference set for February 8, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Department $26 of the
JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
-1.
above-referenced 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 Initial 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”) 0n 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 to the Complaint on 0r about December 13, 2021
10 but has not yet responded to the FAC.
11 The Parties propose March 8, 2022, as the deadline for Defendant to file its responsive
12 pleading to the FAC.
13 II. MAJOR LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES
14 The major legal issues in this case include the claims set forth
in Plaintiff’s FAC namely
15 Defendant’s alleged: (1) failure to pay proper minimum wages, (2) failure to pay proper overtime
16 wages, (3) failure to provide compliant meal periods,
(4) failure to provide compliant rest
17 periods, (5) failure to reimburse business expenses,
(6) failure to pay wages, (7) failure to timely
18 pay final wages, and (8) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.
19 Defendant denies Plaintiff’s material allegations and any alleged Violations of the
20 California Labor Code.
21 III. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
22 The Parties are not amenable to mediation at this time but agree to revisit the subject as
23 discovery progresses.
24 IV. DISCOVERY PLAN
25 The Parties have jointly agreed t0 lift the stay on discovery, and agree to the typical
26 bifurcation of class certification versus merits discovery.
Additionally, the Parties have agreed
27 to a Belaire- West notice to facilitate the exchange of information and Plaintiff’s counsel will
28 provide a draft notice t0 defense counsel shortly.
JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
-2-
Document Filed Date
February 02, 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
\a \r F I L E D SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BEHNARDINO SAN BEHNARDINO DISTRICT Brian J. Mankin, Esq. [CSB No. 216228] briangéflmlfzrmflom FEB 0 2 2022 Kristina Bui Carlson, Esq. [CSB No. 294924] kristina (Dim! irm.com LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP 4590 Allstate Drive Riverside, CA 92501 Tel: (951) 320-1444 Fax: (951) 320-1445 Attorneys for Plaintiff, on a representative basis and on 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 92618 10 949-885-1360 949-885-1380-fax 11 nicoleshaflbrfi)iackson]cwis.com chasedeanflifiacksonlewis.com 12 kevinerwina’macksonlewis.com 13 Attorneys for Defendant HAMNER TOWING, INC. 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 16 17 RICHARD HARPER, individually, 0n a Case'No; CIVSB 2127523 representative basis, and on behalf of all [ASSlgned t0 H0”. DaVld COhn, Dept 526Jf0" 18 others similarly situated; allpurposesj 19 Plaintiffl JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 20 CONFERENCE STATEMENT vs. 21 22 HAMNER TOWING, INC., a California Mg Date; February 8, 2022 Corporation; and DOES l through 20, Time; 9:00 am, inclusive; 23 Dept: $26 24 Defendants. Complaint filed: 10/04/2021 25 26 Plaintiff Richard Harper and Hamner Towing, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and 27 through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this Joint Statement in advance of the Initial 28 Case Management Conference set for February 8, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Department $26 of the JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT -1. above-referenced 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 Initial 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”) 0n 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 to the Complaint on 0r about December 13, 2021 10 but has not yet responded to the FAC. 11 The Parties propose March 8, 2022, as the deadline for Defendant to file its responsive 12 pleading to the FAC. 13 II. MAJOR LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES 14 The major legal issues in this case include the claims set forth in Plaintiff’s FAC namely 15 Defendant’s alleged: (1) failure to pay proper minimum wages, (2) failure to pay proper overtime 16 wages, (3) failure to provide compliant meal periods, (4) failure to provide compliant rest 17 periods, (5) failure to reimburse business expenses, (6) failure to pay wages, (7) failure to timely 18 pay final wages, and (8) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. 19 Defendant denies Plaintiff’s material allegations and any alleged Violations of the 20 California Labor Code. 21 III. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 22 The Parties are not amenable to mediation at this time but agree to revisit the subject as 23 discovery progresses. 24 IV. DISCOVERY PLAN 25 The Parties have jointly agreed t0 lift the stay on discovery, and agree to the typical 26 bifurcation of class certification versus merits discovery. Additionally, the Parties have agreed 27 to a Belaire- West notice to facilitate the exchange of information and Plaintiff’s counsel will 28 provide a draft notice t0 defense counsel shortly. JOINT INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT -2-