Preview
CHRISTOPHER A. BRAHAM (SBN 293367)
1 cbraham@mwe.com
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
3 Telephone: +1 310 277 4110
Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730
4
JEAN EDMONDS (pro hac vice)
5 jedmonds@mwe.com
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
6 One Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3852
7 Telephone: +1 212 547 5571
Facsimile: +1 212 547 5444
8 Admitted to practice in Illinois, not admitted to
practice in New York
9
Attorneys for Defendant
10 WEDRIVEU, INC.
11
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
14
15
ANTONIO BUSH, an individual, on behalf of all Case No: 23-CIV-01872
16 others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION
17 FOR COORDINATION
v.
18 JUDGE: HON. JEFFREY FINIGAN
19 WEDRIVEU, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, DEPT: 24
inclusive,
20 COMPLAINT FILED: APRIL 24, 2023
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION, CASE NO: 22-ST-CV-06630
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 Pursuant to the California Rules of Court, rule 3.522, Defendant WeDriveU, Inc.
3 (“WeDriveU”) hereby gives notice that it submitted a Petition for Coordination to the Chair of the
4 Judicial Council on January 22, 2024, requesting that the above-entitled action be coordinated with
5 Antonio Bush & Precious Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-
6 02197 and Mecia Davis & Wynona Harris v. WeDriveU, Los Angeles – Central District Superior
7 Court No. 22-ST-CV-06630. The Petition for Coordination, memorandum of points and authorities
8 in support thereof, the declaration of counsel in support thereof, and [Proposed] Order are attached
9 hereto as Exhibits A-D, respectively. Any written opposition to the Petition for Coordination must
10 be submitted and served at least nine court days before the hearing date.
11 The names and addresses of Petitioner’s attorneys of record are:
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRISTOPHER A. BRAHAM (SBN 293367)
LOS ANGELES
13 cbraham@mwe.com
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
14 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
15 Telephone: +1 310 277 4110
Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730
16
JEAN EDMONDS (pro hac vice)
17 jedmonds@mwe.com
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
18 One Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3852
19 Telephone: +1 212 547 5571
Facsimile: +1 212 547 5444
20 Admitted to practice in Illinois, not admitted to practice in New York
21
22
Dated: January 24, 2024 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
23
24 By: /s/ Christopher Braham
CHRISTOPHER BRAHAM
25 JEAN EDMONDS
Attorneys for Defendant
26 WEDRIVEU, INC.
27
28
-1-
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION, CASE NO: 22-ST-CV-06630
EXHIBIT A
1 TO THE CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL:
2 1. In accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 404 et seq. and the
3 California Rules of Court, rules 3.501 et seq., Petitioner WeDriveU, Inc. (“WeDriveU”) hereby
4 requests that a coordination motion judge be assigned to determine whether coordination of the three
5 (3) actions pending against it are appropriate in San Mateo County Superior Court, specifically:
6 a. Antonio Bush & Precious Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc., San Mateo Superior
7 Court Case No. 22-CIV-02197, first filed June 2, 2022, and amended January
8 5, 2024;
9 b. Antonio Bush v. WeDriveU, Inc., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 23-CIV-
10 01872, filed April 24, 2023;
11 c. Mecia Davis & Wynona Harris v. WeDriveU, Inc., Los Angeles – Central
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12 District Superior Court Case No. 22-ST-CV-06630, filed January 11, 2024.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 2. These three (3) actions are the “Included Actions.”
14 3. This Petition is brought on the grounds that coordination of the Included Actions
15 should be brought before one judge for all purposes in San Mateo County Superior Court, as such
16 coordination will promote the ends of justice as required by California Code of Civil Procedure
17 sections 404 and 404.1, for the following reasons:
18 a. The Included Actions all contain claims against WeDriveU;
19 b. The claims include substantially overlapping facts and legal theories involving
20 allegations that WeDriveU failed to pay minimum wages, pay wages when
21 due, provide rest periods, or provide accurate wage statements to non-exempt
22 WeDriveU California employees;
23 c. These claims are all brought by plaintiffs who formerly worked as hourly, non-
24 exempt employees at WeDriveU’s California locations;
25 d. The Included Actions are putative class actions and/or putative representative
26 actions under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004;
27 e. Coordination of the Included Actions will advance the convenience of the
28 parties, witnesses, and counsel;
PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU WAGE AND HOUR CASES
1 f. The Included Actions are in a very early stage of litigation;
2 g. Coordination of the Included Actions will promote the efficient utilization of
3 judicial facilities and manpower;
4 h. Coordination of the Included Actions before the San Mateo County Superior
5 Court will remove the strain of these complex actions from the calendars of
6 multiple courts before which the actions are now proceeding; and
7 i. Coordination of the Included Actions will avoid the risk of duplicative and
8 inconsistent rulings, orders and judgments.
9 4. The Included Actions are complex within the meaning of California Rule of Court
10 3.400 in that they require exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on
11 the courts and the litigants and to expedite the cases, keep costs reasonable, and promote efficient
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12 decision-making by the courts, the parties and counsel. The Included Actions are likely to involve
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time consuming to
14 resolve; management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary
15 evidence; management of a large number of separately represented parties; and coordination with
16 related actions pending in one or more Superior Courts in California.
17 5. In accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.3, and
18 California Rules of Court 3.521 and 3.540, Petitioner requests that any hearing on this Petition and
19 the coordinated proceedings in the Included Actions specifically be assigned to the San Mateo
20 County Superior Court, where the first-filed Included Action was filed, Chatman, et al. v. WeDriveU,
21 Inc., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-02197.
22 6. This Petition is based upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
23 Authorities, and the Declaration of Counsel and the exhibits attached thereto.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-2-
PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU WAGE AND HOUR CASES
1 Dated: January 19, 2024 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2
By: /s/ Christopher Braham
3 CHRISTOPHER BRAHAM
4 JEAN EDMONDS
Attorneys for Defendant
5 WEDRIVEU, INC.
6
7
8
9
10
11
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU WAGE AND HOUR CASES
EXHIBIT B
1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.1 and Rule 3.521 of the
2 California Rules of Court, Petitioner WeDriveU, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “WeDriveU”) seeks the
3 coordination of three (3) actions pending against Petitioner (the “Included Actions”) into one
4 proceeding in San Mateo County Superior Court. The claims in the Included Actions involve
5 substantially overlapping facts and legal theories, alleging that WeDriveU failed to pay minimum
6 wages, pay wages when due, provide rest periods, or provide accurate wage statements to non-exempt
7 WeDriveU California employees employed since January 5, 2020.
8 Coordination of the Included Actions in one proceeding will advance the convenience of the
9 parties, witnesses and counsel and will promote the efficient use of judicial resources. Coordination
10 is appropriate because the Included Actions are in the early stages of litigation.
11 Petitioner also requests that the coordination motion judge issue an order staying the
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12 proceedings in the Included Actions pending a determination of whether coordination is appropriate,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 404.5.
14 I. THE PETITIONER.
15 The Petitioner is WeDriveU, Inc. – defendant in the Bush & Chatman action, Davis & Harris
16 action, and Bush standalone action, as discussed herein. Petitioner is represented by the following
17 counsel:
18 CHRISTOPHER A. BRAHAM (SBN 293367)
cbraham@mwe.com
19 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
20 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
Telephone: +1 310 277 4110
21 Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730
22 JEAN EDMONDS (pro hac vice)
jedmonds@mwe.com
23 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
One Vanderbilt Avenue
24 New York, NY 10017-3852
Telephone: +1 212 547 5571
25 Facsimile: +1 212 547 5444
Admitted to practice in Illinois, not admitted to practice in New York
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF
WEDRIVEU, INC. WAGE AND HOUR CASES
1 II. THE INCLUDED ACTIONS.
2 A. First-Filed Action: Chatman, et. al v. WeDriveU, Inc.
3 Chatman initially filed a class action lawsuit in San Mateo Superior Court, Case No. No. 22-
4 CIV-02197, on June 2, 2022. She has since abandoned her counsel and is no longer pursuing her
5 class claims.1 On January 5, 2024, former employee Antonio Bush (“Bush”) joined her case and
6 replaced her as the putative class representative, filing a First Amended Complaint. This class action
7 lawsuit against WeDriveU is brought in San Mateo Superior Court on behalf of all California non-
8 exempt employees who have worked for WeDriveU since January 5, 2020, and are subject to
9 WeDriveU’s collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters Local Union 853 (the “Union”).
10 (Declaration of Christopher Braham “Braham Decl.,” ¶ 4.) Current employee Precious Chatman has
11 joined as a plaintiff in Bush’s lawsuit in her individual capacity. (Id.) The action, entitled Antonio
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12 Bush & Precious Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-02197
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 alleges that WeDriveU failed to pay minimum wages, to pay wages when due, to provide rest breaks,
14 to provide accurate wage statements, and that it engaged in unlawful business practices
15 (“Bush/Chatman Action”). (Id.).
16 Chatman appears pro se. Bush is represented by the following counsel:
17 Norman B. Blumenthal (SBN 068687)
Kyle R. Nordrehaug (SBN 205975)
18 Aparajit Bhowmik (SBN 248066)
19 Nicholas J. De Blouw (SBN 280922)
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
20 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
21 Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
22
23
24 1
Chatman’s original Complaint additionally included claims that WeDriveU failed to pay overtime,
25 failed to provide required meal periods, failed to provide required sick pay, and failed to reimburse
business expenses. WeDriveU removed the case to federal court, where the overtime, meal period,
26 and sick pay claims were dismissed on WeDriveU’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings prior to
remand. Chatman later agreed to withdraw her expense reimbursement claim as her counsel was
27
unable to demonstrate a legitimate factual basis for said claim.
28
-2-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF
WEDRIVEU, INC.’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES
1 B. Second-Filed Action: Antonio Bush v. WeDriveU, Inc.
2 On April 24, 2023, Antonio Bush filed a class action lawsuit in San Mateo Superior Court,
3 Case No. 23-CIV-01872 (“Bush’s Standalone Class Action”) (Id. ¶13.) Similar to the Bush/Chatman
4 lawsuit, Bush’s original lawsuit alleges that WeDriveU failed to pay minimum wage, failed to
5 provide meal periods and rest breaks, failed to pay wages when due, and thereby engaged in unfair
6 business practices. (Id.) Bush has represented that he intends to dismiss his initial complaint with
7 prejudice, but he has not yet done so. (Id. ¶14.)2
8 Bush is represented by the following counsel:
Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776)
9 Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483)
Brett Szmanda, Esq. (SBN 288688)
10 LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
11 Beverly Hills, California 90211
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
12 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13
C. Third-Filed Action: Mecia Davis & Wynona Harris v. WeDriveU, Inc.
14
On January 11, 2024, former employees Mecia Davis (“Davis”) and Wynona Harris
15
(“Harris”) filed a class action and Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) lawsuit in Los
16
Angeles – Central District Superior Court. (Id. ¶ 8). They bring that lawsuit all California non-exempt
17
employees who have been employed by WeDriveU in the past four years who are not subject to
18
WeDriveU’s collective bargaining agreement with the Union. (Id.). Their consolidated lawsuit
19
alleges several claims identical to those at issue in the Bush/Chatman Action, i.e., that WeDriveU
20
failed to pay minimum wages, to pay overtime wages, to provide meal and rest breaks, to produce
21
requested employment records, to provide accurate wage statements, and to timely pay all earned
22
wages and final paychecks, thereby engaging in unfair business practices (“Davis/Harris Action”).
23
(Id.)
24
Davis and Harris are represented by the following counsel:
25
26
2
Because Bush is now bringing substantially the same class action claims in the Bush/Chatman
27
Action as he initially brought in his initial Standalone Class Action, the analysis in this Petition as
28 to both Actions is the same.
-3-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF
WEDRIVEU, INC.’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES
Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776)
1 Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483)
Brett Szmanda, Esq. (SBN 288688)
2 LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
3 Beverly Hills, California 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
4 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
5 Michael Nourmand, Esq. (SBN 198439)
James A. De Sario, Esq. (SBN 262552)
6 Ivan P. Medina, Esq. (SBN 323360)
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
7 8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90211
8 Telephone (310) 553-3600
Facsimile (310) 553-3603
9
III. STATUS OF THE INCLUDED ACTIONS.
10
A. The Chatman, et al. Action.
11
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
The Chatman, et. al Action was originally filed in San Mateo Superior Court on June 2, 2022.
12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
An amended complaint to substitute in a new named plaintiff, Antonio Bush, was filed on January 5,
LOS ANGELES
13
2024. (Id. ¶ 4.) Although WeDriveU and Chatman exchanged some initial discovery in the original
14
Chatman action in June through August 2023, these prior actions have effectively been stayed since
15
September 2023 while all parties coordinated on consolidation.
16
B. The Bush Standalone Class Action
17
The Bush Standalone Class Action was originally filed in San Mateo Superior Court on April
18
24, 2023. (Id. ¶ 13.). The parties have not engaged in any motion practice or discovery with respect
19
to Bush’s claims.
20
C. The Davis/Harris Action.
21
The Davis/Harris Action was filed in Los Angeles – Central District Superior Court on
22
January 11, 2024 (Id. ¶ 8.) This Action consolidated Davis’s previous class and PAGA actions with
23
those brought by Harris, supra note 2. The parties have not engaged in any motion practice or
24
discovery with respect to these claims.
25
26
IV. THE INCLUDED ACTIONS MEET THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
27
404.1 REQUIREMENTS.
28
-4-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF
WEDRIVEU, INC.’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES
1 The Included Actions should be coordinated because they share a “common question of fact
2 or law,” and coordination before a single judge will “promote the ends of justice” pursuant to the
3 factors specified in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.1. The factors considered are as
4 follows: “whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the
5 litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions
6 and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the
7 calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments;
8 and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be
9 denied.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 404.1.
10 A. Common Questions Of Fact Or Law.
11 Common questions of fact and law predominate and are significant to the Included Actions.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12 The plaintiffs and alleged “aggrieved employees” represented in the Included Actions encompass the
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 same group of individuals during overlapping time periods - all non-exempt WeDriveU California
14 employees employed since January 2020. (Braham Decl., ¶ 15.) Moreover, each of the Included
15 Actions allege facts arising from WeDriveU’s operation of its California locations. The Included
16 Actions share common questions of law and the claims alleged in each are substantially and
17 substantively identical because each of the Included Actions allege that WeDriveU failed to pay
18 minimum wages, pay wages when due, provide rest periods, or provide accurate wage statements,
19 thereby committing unfair business practices. (Braham Decl., ¶ 16) The primary difference between
20 the Included Actions is that the Bush/Chatman action is brought on behalf of Union-represented
21 employees whereas the Davis/Harris Action is brought on behalf of non-Union-represented
22 employees. (Braham Decl. ¶¶ 4, 15.) The Davis/Harris Action therefore includes additional claims
23 that would be preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act if brought on behalf of Union-
24 represented employees – namely, claims related to overtime and meal breaks. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8-9, 16.)
25 However, this union versus non-union distinction does not preempt the minimum wages, timing of
26 wage payments, rest periods, or wage statements claims alleged on behalf of both Union and non-
27 Union employees. All cases allege that WeDriveU has a uniform unlawful policy and practice that
28
-5-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF
WEDRIVEU, INC.’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES
1 gives rise to these three claims. Therefore, the slight differences between the Davis/Harris and
2 Bush/Chatman do not change the material conclusion: the Included Actions share common questions
3 of fact and law.
4 B. The Convenience Of Parties, Witnesses And Counsel.
5 Coordination of the Included Actions in San Mateo County Superior Court will serve the
6 convenience of the parties, witnesses and counsel.
7 First, WeDriveU’s primary witnesses reside in the San Francisco Bay Area as its operations
8 are based in Burlingame, California, which is in San Mateo County (Id. ¶ 17.) San Mateo County is
9 much easier commute for these witnesses when compared to Los Angeles.
10 Second, Chatman’s employment records indicate that she lives in or near Oakland, California,
11 in Alameda County. (Id. ¶ 18.) Alameda County is directly linked to San Mateo by bridge. (Id.) The
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12 other plaintiffs’ residential information is unknown to WeDriveU.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 This factor weighs in favor of adjudicating the Included Actions in San Mateo County.
14 C. The Relative Development Of The Actions And The Work Product Of Counsel.
15 The Included Actions are in the very early stages of litigation such that coordination will not
16 prejudice the parties. (Id. ¶ 20.) Although some initial written discovery has been exchanged in the
17 original Chatman action, it has been minimal; Chatman herself has not produced any discovery
18 responses. (Id. ¶ 21.) WeDriveU has not engaged in any written discovery with the other plaintiffs.
19 And as of the date of this filing, no party has taken a deposition. (Id. ¶ 22.) Given that discovery in
20 the Included Actions remains in the early stages, there is ample time for the plaintiffs to conduct
21 streamlined discovery in an efficient manner. No plaintiff would be hindered in the development of
22 their own case (which will overlap with the other) by coordination at this stage. Rather, coordination
23 would allow counsel for all parties to control their work product in order to avoid repetitive efforts
24 with respect to discovery.
25 D. Coordination Will Advance The Efficient Utilization Of Judicial Facilities And
26 Prevent Duplicative And/Or Inconsistent Rulings.
27 Fourth, coordination at this early stage is extremely conducive to furthering judicial economy
28
-6-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF
WEDRIVEU, INC.’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES
1 and avoiding inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments. Currently, two different judges sitting in two
2 different counties on opposite geographic locations within the State of California are presiding over
3 these nearly identical Included Actions. The time and resources of the courts would be expended
4 twice over to consider and resolve similar discovery disputes and motion submissions. To avoid
5 wasting judicial resources, a single judge should be selected to rule on these issues.
6 Moreover, a myriad trial management issues, including possibly conflicting PAGA
7 manageability rulings, and evidentiary questions would also arise in the event of duplicative or
8 inconsistent rulings provided by different courts. Duplicative or inconsistent rulings on discovery,
9 class certification and summary adjudication/judgment, the merits or trial manageability will
10 complicate and confuse proceedings in the Included Actions. See Pesses v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.
11 App. 3d 117, 125 (1980) (affirming trial court's denial of motions to remand coordinated actions even
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
12 after defendant stipulated to liability because, inter alia, there was the possibility of unfairness of
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
13 inconsistent rulings on the issue of prejudgment interest among the plaintiffs).
14 Accordingly, coordination of the Included Actions would promote judicial economy and
15 efficiency.
16 E. Coordination Before One Judge Will Promote Settlement.
17 Coordination of the Included Actions will encourage the parties
Preview
CHRISTOPHER A. BRAHAM (SBN 293367) 1 cbraham@mwe.com MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 2 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 3 Telephone: +1 310 277 4110 Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730 4 JEAN EDMONDS (pro hac vice) 5 jedmonds@mwe.com MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 6 One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017-3852 7 Telephone: +1 212 547 5571 Facsimile: +1 212 547 5444 8 Admitted to practice in Illinois, not admitted to practice in New York 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 WEDRIVEU, INC. 11 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 14 15 ANTONIO BUSH, an individual, on behalf of all Case No: 23-CIV-01872 16 others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION 17 FOR COORDINATION v. 18 JUDGE: HON. JEFFREY FINIGAN 19 WEDRIVEU, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, DEPT: 24 inclusive, 20 COMPLAINT FILED: APRIL 24, 2023 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION, CASE NO: 22-ST-CV-06630 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Pursuant to the California Rules of Court, rule 3.522, Defendant WeDriveU, Inc. 3 (“WeDriveU”) hereby gives notice that it submitted a Petition for Coordination to the Chair of the 4 Judicial Council on January 22, 2024, requesting that the above-entitled action be coordinated with 5 Antonio Bush & Precious Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV- 6 02197 and Mecia Davis & Wynona Harris v. WeDriveU, Los Angeles – Central District Superior 7 Court No. 22-ST-CV-06630. The Petition for Coordination, memorandum of points and authorities 8 in support thereof, the declaration of counsel in support thereof, and [Proposed] Order are attached 9 hereto as Exhibits A-D, respectively. Any written opposition to the Petition for Coordination must 10 be submitted and served at least nine court days before the hearing date. 11 The names and addresses of Petitioner’s attorneys of record are: MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHRISTOPHER A. BRAHAM (SBN 293367) LOS ANGELES 13 cbraham@mwe.com MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 14 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 15 Telephone: +1 310 277 4110 Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730 16 JEAN EDMONDS (pro hac vice) 17 jedmonds@mwe.com MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 18 One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017-3852 19 Telephone: +1 212 547 5571 Facsimile: +1 212 547 5444 20 Admitted to practice in Illinois, not admitted to practice in New York 21 22 Dated: January 24, 2024 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 23 24 By: /s/ Christopher Braham CHRISTOPHER BRAHAM 25 JEAN EDMONDS Attorneys for Defendant 26 WEDRIVEU, INC. 27 28 -1- NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION, CASE NO: 22-ST-CV-06630 EXHIBIT A 1 TO THE CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL: 2 1. In accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 404 et seq. and the 3 California Rules of Court, rules 3.501 et seq., Petitioner WeDriveU, Inc. (“WeDriveU”) hereby 4 requests that a coordination motion judge be assigned to determine whether coordination of the three 5 (3) actions pending against it are appropriate in San Mateo County Superior Court, specifically: 6 a. Antonio Bush & Precious Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc., San Mateo Superior 7 Court Case No. 22-CIV-02197, first filed June 2, 2022, and amended January 8 5, 2024; 9 b. Antonio Bush v. WeDriveU, Inc., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 23-CIV- 10 01872, filed April 24, 2023; 11 c. Mecia Davis & Wynona Harris v. WeDriveU, Inc., Los Angeles – Central MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 District Superior Court Case No. 22-ST-CV-06630, filed January 11, 2024. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 2. These three (3) actions are the “Included Actions.” 14 3. This Petition is brought on the grounds that coordination of the Included Actions 15 should be brought before one judge for all purposes in San Mateo County Superior Court, as such 16 coordination will promote the ends of justice as required by California Code of Civil Procedure 17 sections 404 and 404.1, for the following reasons: 18 a. The Included Actions all contain claims against WeDriveU; 19 b. The claims include substantially overlapping facts and legal theories involving 20 allegations that WeDriveU failed to pay minimum wages, pay wages when 21 due, provide rest periods, or provide accurate wage statements to non-exempt 22 WeDriveU California employees; 23 c. These claims are all brought by plaintiffs who formerly worked as hourly, non- 24 exempt employees at WeDriveU’s California locations; 25 d. The Included Actions are putative class actions and/or putative representative 26 actions under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; 27 e. Coordination of the Included Actions will advance the convenience of the 28 parties, witnesses, and counsel; PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU WAGE AND HOUR CASES 1 f. The Included Actions are in a very early stage of litigation; 2 g. Coordination of the Included Actions will promote the efficient utilization of 3 judicial facilities and manpower; 4 h. Coordination of the Included Actions before the San Mateo County Superior 5 Court will remove the strain of these complex actions from the calendars of 6 multiple courts before which the actions are now proceeding; and 7 i. Coordination of the Included Actions will avoid the risk of duplicative and 8 inconsistent rulings, orders and judgments. 9 4. The Included Actions are complex within the meaning of California Rule of Court 10 3.400 in that they require exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on 11 the courts and the litigants and to expedite the cases, keep costs reasonable, and promote efficient MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 decision-making by the courts, the parties and counsel. The Included Actions are likely to involve ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time consuming to 14 resolve; management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary 15 evidence; management of a large number of separately represented parties; and coordination with 16 related actions pending in one or more Superior Courts in California. 17 5. In accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.3, and 18 California Rules of Court 3.521 and 3.540, Petitioner requests that any hearing on this Petition and 19 the coordinated proceedings in the Included Actions specifically be assigned to the San Mateo 20 County Superior Court, where the first-filed Included Action was filed, Chatman, et al. v. WeDriveU, 21 Inc., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-02197. 22 6. This Petition is based upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points and 23 Authorities, and the Declaration of Counsel and the exhibits attached thereto. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -2- PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU WAGE AND HOUR CASES 1 Dated: January 19, 2024 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 2 By: /s/ Christopher Braham 3 CHRISTOPHER BRAHAM 4 JEAN EDMONDS Attorneys for Defendant 5 WEDRIVEU, INC. 6 7 8 9 10 11 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU WAGE AND HOUR CASES EXHIBIT B 1 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 404 and 404.1 and Rule 3.521 of the 2 California Rules of Court, Petitioner WeDriveU, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “WeDriveU”) seeks the 3 coordination of three (3) actions pending against Petitioner (the “Included Actions”) into one 4 proceeding in San Mateo County Superior Court. The claims in the Included Actions involve 5 substantially overlapping facts and legal theories, alleging that WeDriveU failed to pay minimum 6 wages, pay wages when due, provide rest periods, or provide accurate wage statements to non-exempt 7 WeDriveU California employees employed since January 5, 2020. 8 Coordination of the Included Actions in one proceeding will advance the convenience of the 9 parties, witnesses and counsel and will promote the efficient use of judicial resources. Coordination 10 is appropriate because the Included Actions are in the early stages of litigation. 11 Petitioner also requests that the coordination motion judge issue an order staying the MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 proceedings in the Included Actions pending a determination of whether coordination is appropriate, ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 404.5. 14 I. THE PETITIONER. 15 The Petitioner is WeDriveU, Inc. – defendant in the Bush & Chatman action, Davis & Harris 16 action, and Bush standalone action, as discussed herein. Petitioner is represented by the following 17 counsel: 18 CHRISTOPHER A. BRAHAM (SBN 293367) cbraham@mwe.com 19 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 20 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Telephone: +1 310 277 4110 21 Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730 22 JEAN EDMONDS (pro hac vice) jedmonds@mwe.com 23 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue 24 New York, NY 10017-3852 Telephone: +1 212 547 5571 25 Facsimile: +1 212 547 5444 Admitted to practice in Illinois, not admitted to practice in New York 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU, INC. WAGE AND HOUR CASES 1 II. THE INCLUDED ACTIONS. 2 A. First-Filed Action: Chatman, et. al v. WeDriveU, Inc. 3 Chatman initially filed a class action lawsuit in San Mateo Superior Court, Case No. No. 22- 4 CIV-02197, on June 2, 2022. She has since abandoned her counsel and is no longer pursuing her 5 class claims.1 On January 5, 2024, former employee Antonio Bush (“Bush”) joined her case and 6 replaced her as the putative class representative, filing a First Amended Complaint. This class action 7 lawsuit against WeDriveU is brought in San Mateo Superior Court on behalf of all California non- 8 exempt employees who have worked for WeDriveU since January 5, 2020, and are subject to 9 WeDriveU’s collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters Local Union 853 (the “Union”). 10 (Declaration of Christopher Braham “Braham Decl.,” ¶ 4.) Current employee Precious Chatman has 11 joined as a plaintiff in Bush’s lawsuit in her individual capacity. (Id.) The action, entitled Antonio MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 Bush & Precious Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-02197 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 alleges that WeDriveU failed to pay minimum wages, to pay wages when due, to provide rest breaks, 14 to provide accurate wage statements, and that it engaged in unlawful business practices 15 (“Bush/Chatman Action”). (Id.). 16 Chatman appears pro se. Bush is represented by the following counsel: 17 Norman B. Blumenthal (SBN 068687) Kyle R. Nordrehaug (SBN 205975) 18 Aparajit Bhowmik (SBN 248066) 19 Nicholas J. De Blouw (SBN 280922) BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 20 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 21 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 22 23 24 1 Chatman’s original Complaint additionally included claims that WeDriveU failed to pay overtime, 25 failed to provide required meal periods, failed to provide required sick pay, and failed to reimburse business expenses. WeDriveU removed the case to federal court, where the overtime, meal period, 26 and sick pay claims were dismissed on WeDriveU’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings prior to remand. Chatman later agreed to withdraw her expense reimbursement claim as her counsel was 27 unable to demonstrate a legitimate factual basis for said claim. 28 -2- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU, INC.’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES 1 B. Second-Filed Action: Antonio Bush v. WeDriveU, Inc. 2 On April 24, 2023, Antonio Bush filed a class action lawsuit in San Mateo Superior Court, 3 Case No. 23-CIV-01872 (“Bush’s Standalone Class Action”) (Id. ¶13.) Similar to the Bush/Chatman 4 lawsuit, Bush’s original lawsuit alleges that WeDriveU failed to pay minimum wage, failed to 5 provide meal periods and rest breaks, failed to pay wages when due, and thereby engaged in unfair 6 business practices. (Id.) Bush has represented that he intends to dismiss his initial complaint with 7 prejudice, but he has not yet done so. (Id. ¶14.)2 8 Bush is represented by the following counsel: Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776) 9 Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483) Brett Szmanda, Esq. (SBN 288688) 10 LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 11 Beverly Hills, California 90211 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP Telephone: (310) 432-0000 12 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 C. Third-Filed Action: Mecia Davis & Wynona Harris v. WeDriveU, Inc. 14 On January 11, 2024, former employees Mecia Davis (“Davis”) and Wynona Harris 15 (“Harris”) filed a class action and Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) lawsuit in Los 16 Angeles – Central District Superior Court. (Id. ¶ 8). They bring that lawsuit all California non-exempt 17 employees who have been employed by WeDriveU in the past four years who are not subject to 18 WeDriveU’s collective bargaining agreement with the Union. (Id.). Their consolidated lawsuit 19 alleges several claims identical to those at issue in the Bush/Chatman Action, i.e., that WeDriveU 20 failed to pay minimum wages, to pay overtime wages, to provide meal and rest breaks, to produce 21 requested employment records, to provide accurate wage statements, and to timely pay all earned 22 wages and final paychecks, thereby engaging in unfair business practices (“Davis/Harris Action”). 23 (Id.) 24 Davis and Harris are represented by the following counsel: 25 26 2 Because Bush is now bringing substantially the same class action claims in the Bush/Chatman 27 Action as he initially brought in his initial Standalone Class Action, the analysis in this Petition as 28 to both Actions is the same. -3- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU, INC.’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776) 1 Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483) Brett Szmanda, Esq. (SBN 288688) 2 LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 3 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 4 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 5 Michael Nourmand, Esq. (SBN 198439) James A. De Sario, Esq. (SBN 262552) 6 Ivan P. Medina, Esq. (SBN 323360) THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 7 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90211 8 Telephone (310) 553-3600 Facsimile (310) 553-3603 9 III. STATUS OF THE INCLUDED ACTIONS. 10 A. The Chatman, et al. Action. 11 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP The Chatman, et. al Action was originally filed in San Mateo Superior Court on June 2, 2022. 12 ATTORNEYS AT LAW An amended complaint to substitute in a new named plaintiff, Antonio Bush, was filed on January 5, LOS ANGELES 13 2024. (Id. ¶ 4.) Although WeDriveU and Chatman exchanged some initial discovery in the original 14 Chatman action in June through August 2023, these prior actions have effectively been stayed since 15 September 2023 while all parties coordinated on consolidation. 16 B. The Bush Standalone Class Action 17 The Bush Standalone Class Action was originally filed in San Mateo Superior Court on April 18 24, 2023. (Id. ¶ 13.). The parties have not engaged in any motion practice or discovery with respect 19 to Bush’s claims. 20 C. The Davis/Harris Action. 21 The Davis/Harris Action was filed in Los Angeles – Central District Superior Court on 22 January 11, 2024 (Id. ¶ 8.) This Action consolidated Davis’s previous class and PAGA actions with 23 those brought by Harris, supra note 2. The parties have not engaged in any motion practice or 24 discovery with respect to these claims. 25 26 IV. THE INCLUDED ACTIONS MEET THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 27 404.1 REQUIREMENTS. 28 -4- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU, INC.’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES 1 The Included Actions should be coordinated because they share a “common question of fact 2 or law,” and coordination before a single judge will “promote the ends of justice” pursuant to the 3 factors specified in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.1. The factors considered are as 4 follows: “whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the 5 litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions 6 and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the 7 calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; 8 and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be 9 denied.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 404.1. 10 A. Common Questions Of Fact Or Law. 11 Common questions of fact and law predominate and are significant to the Included Actions. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 The plaintiffs and alleged “aggrieved employees” represented in the Included Actions encompass the ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 same group of individuals during overlapping time periods - all non-exempt WeDriveU California 14 employees employed since January 2020. (Braham Decl., ¶ 15.) Moreover, each of the Included 15 Actions allege facts arising from WeDriveU’s operation of its California locations. The Included 16 Actions share common questions of law and the claims alleged in each are substantially and 17 substantively identical because each of the Included Actions allege that WeDriveU failed to pay 18 minimum wages, pay wages when due, provide rest periods, or provide accurate wage statements, 19 thereby committing unfair business practices. (Braham Decl., ¶ 16) The primary difference between 20 the Included Actions is that the Bush/Chatman action is brought on behalf of Union-represented 21 employees whereas the Davis/Harris Action is brought on behalf of non-Union-represented 22 employees. (Braham Decl. ¶¶ 4, 15.) The Davis/Harris Action therefore includes additional claims 23 that would be preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act if brought on behalf of Union- 24 represented employees – namely, claims related to overtime and meal breaks. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8-9, 16.) 25 However, this union versus non-union distinction does not preempt the minimum wages, timing of 26 wage payments, rest periods, or wage statements claims alleged on behalf of both Union and non- 27 Union employees. All cases allege that WeDriveU has a uniform unlawful policy and practice that 28 -5- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU, INC.’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES 1 gives rise to these three claims. Therefore, the slight differences between the Davis/Harris and 2 Bush/Chatman do not change the material conclusion: the Included Actions share common questions 3 of fact and law. 4 B. The Convenience Of Parties, Witnesses And Counsel. 5 Coordination of the Included Actions in San Mateo County Superior Court will serve the 6 convenience of the parties, witnesses and counsel. 7 First, WeDriveU’s primary witnesses reside in the San Francisco Bay Area as its operations 8 are based in Burlingame, California, which is in San Mateo County (Id. ¶ 17.) San Mateo County is 9 much easier commute for these witnesses when compared to Los Angeles. 10 Second, Chatman’s employment records indicate that she lives in or near Oakland, California, 11 in Alameda County. (Id. ¶ 18.) Alameda County is directly linked to San Mateo by bridge. (Id.) The MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 other plaintiffs’ residential information is unknown to WeDriveU. ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 This factor weighs in favor of adjudicating the Included Actions in San Mateo County. 14 C. The Relative Development Of The Actions And The Work Product Of Counsel. 15 The Included Actions are in the very early stages of litigation such that coordination will not 16 prejudice the parties. (Id. ¶ 20.) Although some initial written discovery has been exchanged in the 17 original Chatman action, it has been minimal; Chatman herself has not produced any discovery 18 responses. (Id. ¶ 21.) WeDriveU has not engaged in any written discovery with the other plaintiffs. 19 And as of the date of this filing, no party has taken a deposition. (Id. ¶ 22.) Given that discovery in 20 the Included Actions remains in the early stages, there is ample time for the plaintiffs to conduct 21 streamlined discovery in an efficient manner. No plaintiff would be hindered in the development of 22 their own case (which will overlap with the other) by coordination at this stage. Rather, coordination 23 would allow counsel for all parties to control their work product in order to avoid repetitive efforts 24 with respect to discovery. 25 D. Coordination Will Advance The Efficient Utilization Of Judicial Facilities And 26 Prevent Duplicative And/Or Inconsistent Rulings. 27 Fourth, coordination at this early stage is extremely conducive to furthering judicial economy 28 -6- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION OF WEDRIVEU, INC.’S WAGE AND HOUR CASES 1 and avoiding inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments. Currently, two different judges sitting in two 2 different counties on opposite geographic locations within the State of California are presiding over 3 these nearly identical Included Actions. The time and resources of the courts would be expended 4 twice over to consider and resolve similar discovery disputes and motion submissions. To avoid 5 wasting judicial resources, a single judge should be selected to rule on these issues. 6 Moreover, a myriad trial management issues, including possibly conflicting PAGA 7 manageability rulings, and evidentiary questions would also arise in the event of duplicative or 8 inconsistent rulings provided by different courts. Duplicative or inconsistent rulings on discovery, 9 class certification and summary adjudication/judgment, the merits or trial manageability will 10 complicate and confuse proceedings in the Included Actions. See Pesses v. Superior Court, 107 Cal. 11 App. 3d 117, 125 (1980) (affirming trial court's denial of motions to remand coordinated actions even MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 12 after defendant stipulated to liability because, inter alia, there was the possibility of unfairness of ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES 13 inconsistent rulings on the issue of prejudgment interest among the plaintiffs). 14 Accordingly, coordination of the Included Actions would promote judicial economy and 15 efficiency. 16 E. Coordination Before One Judge Will Promote Settlement. 17 Coordination of the Included Actions will encourage the parties