Legal Document: Antonio Bush vs WEDRIVEU, INC.

On April 24, 2023 a 497961.1910545.final was filed involving a dispute between Bush, Antonio, and Does 1 To 100, Inclusive, Wedriveu, Inc., for Complex Civil Unlimited Class Action in the District Court of San Mateo County.

Preview
Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776)
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483)
Brett Szmanda, Esq. (SBN 288688)
Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
bszmanda@lelawfirm.com

Michael Nourmand, Esq. (SBN 198439)
James A. De Sario, Esq. (SBN 262552)
Ivan P. Medina, Esq. (SBN 323360)
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Telephone (310) 553-3600
10 Facsimile (310) 553-3603

11 |Attorneys for Plaintiffs MECIA DAVIS and WYNONA HARRIS,
lon behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
12

13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
14

15
ANTONIO BUSH, on behalf of himself and CASE NO. 23-CIV-01872
others similarly situated,
16
(Assigned to Hon. J effrey Finigan, Dept. 24)
PLAINTIFF,
17
vs. CLASS ACTION
18
WEDRIVEU, INC.; and DOES | to 100,
19 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF
inclusive,
OPPOSITION TO WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
20
Defendants. PETITION FOR COORDINATION
21
Action Filed: April 24, 2023
22

23
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24
Pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.522 and 3.523, Plaintiffs Mecia Davis and Wynona
25
Harris (“Plaintiffs”) in the matter of Mecia Davis, et al. v. WeDriveU, Inc., Los Angeles Superior
26
Court Case No. 23STCV06630 hereby provides notice that on February 5, 2024, Plaintiffs submitted to
27
the Chair of the Judicial Council an opposition to WeDriveU, Inc.’s petition for coordination of the
28

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF OPPOSITION TO WEDRIVEU, INC.’S PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND
REQUEST FOR STAY
1
following actions:

1 Antonio Bush, et al. v. WeDriveU, Inc., et al., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-

ICIV-02197;

2. Antonio Bushv. WeDriveU, Inc., et al., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 23-CIV-

101872; and

3. Mecia Davis, et al. v. WeDriveU, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.

23STCV06630 (collectively referred to as the “Included Actions”.)

The opposition opposes WeDriveU, Inc.’s petition for coordination and further opposes

WeDriveU, Inc.’s request for stay.
10 The name and address of counsel for Mecia Davis and Wynona Harris is as follows:
11
Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776)
12 |Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483)
Brett Szmanda, Esq. (SBN 288688)
13 [Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
14
Beverly Hills, California 90211
15 |Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
16 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
17 bszmanda@lelawfirm.com
18
Michael Nourmand, Esq. (SBN 198439)
19 James A. De Sario, Esq. (SBN 262552)
Ivan P. Medina, Esq. (SBN 323360)
20 THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
21 Beverly Hills, California 90211
|Telephone (310) 553-3600
22
Facsimile (310) 553-3603
23

24 |Attorneys for Plaintiffs MECIA DAVIS and WYNONA HARRIS,

25 lon behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF OPPOSITION TO WEDRIVEU, INC.’S PETITION FOR COORDINATION AND
REQUEST FOR STAY
2
LAW OFFICES OF
Lavi & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. OLYMPIC BLVD., SUITE 200
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211
TELEPHONE: (310) 42-0000
FACSIMILE: (310) 432-0001
WWW.LELAWFIRM.COM,

February 5, 2024

via Email
coordination@jud.ca.gov

Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California
Attn: Civil Case Coordination Unit
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Stl1 Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688

Re: Opposition to Petition for Coordination by WeDriveU, Inc. (“Petitioner”,
“Defendant”, or “WeDriveU”)
Mecia Davis and Wynona Harris v. WeDriveU, Inc. et al.
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: 23STCV06630;
Antonia Bush and Precious Chatman v WeDriveU, Inc., et al.
San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-02197; and
Antonia Bush v WeDriveU, Inc., et al.
San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 23-CIV-01872.

Dear Judicial Council:

Plaintiffs Mecia Davis and Wynona Harris (Mecia Davis and Wynona Harris v. WeDriveU,
Inc. et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: 23STCV06630) (hereafter “Plaintiffs”) submit
the following documents in opposition to WeDriveU, Inc.’s Petition for Coordination:
1 PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S PETITION FOR COORDINATION;

DECLARATION OF BRETT SZMANDA ISO PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’ AND
WYNONA HARRIS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S PETITION
FOR COORDINATION;

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’ AND
WYNONA HARRIS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S PETITION
FOR COORDINATION; and
4. PROOF OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S PETITION FOR
COORDINATION AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS.

Plaintiffs will submit Proofs of Filing of the Notices of Submission of Opposition to the
Petition for Coordination in the three included actions within five court days of submitting this
Petition as required under California Rules of Court 3.521(b) and 3.522.
Please contact me if you have any questions of if we can assist you with the processing of
this Opposition Petition and Motion.
Please provide conformed copies of the above-mentioned documents upon receipt. Thank
you for your guidance and assistance in this matter,

Very truly yours,

LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP

/s/ Brett Szmanda
Brett Szmanda, Esq.
Joseph Lav
Vincent C. Granbeny
(SBN 209776)
, Esq. ((SBN 276483)
Brett Szmanda, Esq.«(SBN 288688)
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. O}
Beverly Hil Ig
ic Blvd., Suite 200
alifomnia 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranbel @lelawfirm.com
bszmanda@Ielawfirm.com

Michael Nourmand, Esq. (SBN 198439)
JamesA. De Sario, Esq. (SBN 262552)
IvanP. Medina, Esq. (SBN 323360)
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90211
10 Telephone (310) 553-3600
Facsimile (310) 553-3603
1

12
Attome
on behi al fs offorthemselves
Plaintiffs MECIA DAVIS and WY NONA
and others similarly situated
HARRIS

13
JUDICIAL COUNSEL OF CALIFORNIA
14
CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNSEL
15

16 MECIA DAVIS and WY NONA HARRIS Judicial Council Coordination No. JCCP5314
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
17 situated, PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND
WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO
18 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
19 VS.
[DECLARATION OF BRETT SZMANDA
20 WEDRIVEU, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, ISO PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND
inclusive, WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO
21 DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
Defendants PETITION FOR COORDINATION FILED
22 CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH]
23 Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No.: 23STCV 06630
24
Action Filed: March 27, 2023
Trial Date: N/A
25
Assignedto: Hon. David S. Cunningham III
26

27
[caption continued on next page]
28

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
1
ANTONIO BUSH, an individual, on behalf of San Mateo Superior Court
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly Case No. 22-CIV-02197
situated, PRECIOUS CHATMAN, an Complaint Filed: June 2, 2022
individual, Assigned to: Hon. Jeffrey Finigan
Plaintiff,

vs.

WEDRIVEU, INC., a Califomia Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

ANTONIO BUSH, on behalf of himself and San Mateo Superior Court
others similarly situated, Case No. 23-CIV-01872
10 Complaint Filed: April 24, 2023
Plaintiff, Assigned to: Hon. Jeffrey Finigan
1 vs.

12
WEDRIVEU, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
13 inclusive,

14 Defendants.
15

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

II BACKGROUND.

Il. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Defendant Has Not Demonstrated That Coordination of the Included Actions
Will Promote the Ends of Justice Under the Factors Set Out In Code of Civil
Procedure Section 404.100.0000... cccecceeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeaaeeseeeeeeeeeeeees 8

1 Common Questions of Fact or Law Are Not Predominating or
Significantto the Litigation.
The Convenience of Parties, Witnesses, and Counsel... 10
The Relative Development of the Actions and the Work Product
10 of Counsel Do Not Support Coordination... 10
1 Coordination Will Not Promote the Efficient Utilization of Judicial
Facilities and Manpower, or Reduce the Risk of Duplicative and
12 Inconsistent Rulings, Orders or Judgments. 11

13 The Calendar of the Courts Does Not Support Coordination. 12
The Likelihood of Settlement of the Actions Without Further Litigation
14
Should Coordination be Denied. 12
15
B. Defendant Has Failed To Demonstrate That Each Included Action Meets
16 The Coordination Standards Of C.C.P. Section 404.1.............
ccc cceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 13

17 C. Should The Court Be Inclined To Grant Defendant’s Petition, Los Angeles
County Is The Appropriate V enue For The Coordinated Proceedings. 13
18

19 1 The Number of Included Actions in Particular Locations 13
2 Whether the Litigation is at an Advanced Stage in a Particular Court. 14
20
3 The Efficient
Use of Court Facilities and Judicial Resources 14
21
The Locations of Witnesses and Evidence 14
22 The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses 14
23 The Parties’ Principal Places of Business 14

24
The Office Locations of Counsel for the Parties . 14
The Ease of Travel to and Availability of Accommodations
25 in Particular Locations 15
26 D. The Included Actions Should Not Be Stayed Pending Determination
the Petition ... 15
27
IV. CONCLUSION 16
28

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

State Cases:
Christenson v. Superior Court,
(1991) 54 Cal.3d 868
iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC
(2014) 59 Cal.4th 348
|Keenan v. Superior Court
(1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 336
IKim v. Reins International California, Inc.
(2020) 9 Cal.5th 73
|LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Store
(2022) 75 Cal.A pp.5th 388 13
IMcGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court
10
(1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804 7,9, 15
1

12
(9th Cir. 2014) 747 F.3d 1117 11
13
Statutes:
14
Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 400
15
Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 404.100... 00. cccc cece cc ecceeecceecee secu eeeeeseeueceueseeueceneseeueeeneseaeaeaee 5,7,8
16
Cal. Labor Code § 2699(g)(1) 11
17
|Rules:
18
Cal. R. Ct. 3.515 7, 13,15
19
Cal. R. Ct. 3.530 7,13
20
Cal. R. Ct. 5.521 8,13
21

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
4
TO THE HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL:

I INTRODUCTION

Coordination of Wynona Davis & Mecia Harris v. WeDriveU, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court

Case No. 23-ST-CV-06630 (the “Davis Action”) with Antonio Bush & Precious Chatman v. WeDriveU,

Inc., San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-02197 and Antonio Bush v. WeDriveU, Inc., San Mateo

Superior Court Case No. 22-CIV-01872 (the “Bush Actions”)(together with the Davis Action, the

“Included Actions”) will not promote the ends of justice, or the efficient utilization of judicial facilities

and manpower. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 400, 404.1; see also Christenson v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d

868, 877 fn. 6 (explaining that “the purpose of coordination of civil actions. ..includes the efficient use of
10 judicial resources.”)
1 Defendant’s petition for coordination relies on the incorrect premise that the Included Actions

12 involve substantially overlapping facts and legal theories when they simply do not. First off, the Davis
13 Action concems a class that is limited to non-union employees who are not subject to a collective
14 bargaining agreement (see Defendant’s Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination (“Petition”),

15 Exhibit A, pg. 3, Ins. 14-18, citing Declaration of Christopher Braham “Braham Decl.,” § 8), while the

16 Bush Actions concern a class of union employees that are subject to a collective bargaining agreement
17 (“CBA”) between Defendant and the Teamsters Local Union 853 (the “Union”). (See Petition, ExhibitA,
18 pg. 2, Ins. 3-10, citing Braham Decl., § 4.) As such, there is absolutely no overlap with respect to the

19 members of the classes at issue in the Davis and Bush Actions. Furthermore, while the Davis Action and

20 Bush Actions each allege that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages, provide rest periods, provide
21 accurate wage statements or timely pay earned wages upon the separation of employment, the Davis
22 Action includes several additional claims that are not at issue in the Bush Actions, including failure to

23 pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to produce employment records, and a representative
24 PAGA action. (Declaration of Brett Szmanda (“Szmanda Decl.”), § 2.)
25 Moreover, even the claims that are alleged in both the Davis Action and the Bush Actions will

26 necessarily involve distinct issues of fact and law, as the terms and conditions of employment for the two
27 classes are governed by completely different sets of rules. The employment of the members of the class
28

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
5
in the Bush Actions are governed by the CBA, which “provides for wages that exceed 30% of the states’
ood
minimum wage laws, hours of work, working conditions of the employees, and premium wage rate: Ss”.

(Szmanda Decl.”), 3, Exhibit 1; see also Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice (“RFJN”), Exhibit A.)

On the other hand, the employment of the members of the class in the Davis Action are govemed by

Defendant’s internal policies, procedures and rules, and there is no evidence that Defendant’s internal

policies, procedures and rules mirror those of the CBA. (Szmanda Decl., 4.)

In addition, coordinating the Included Actions will not make it more convenient for the Parties,

witnesses or counsel as Defendant argues. While it would be more convenient for Defendant if the

Included Actions were coordinated in San Mateo County, the same is not true for Plaintiffs Mecia Davis

10 or Wynona Harris, both of whom reside in Los Angeles County.” (Szmanda Decl., 1.5.) With respect to

1 the convenience of counsel, they are all located in either Los Angeles County or Orange County.
12 Defendant is represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, whose offices are located in Los Angeles
13 (see Petition, pg. 1, Ins. 13-16); and the Plaintiffs are represented by: (1) Blumenthal Nordrehaug

14 Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, whose offices are located in La Jolla (see Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 2, Ins. 17-

15 22); (2) Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP, whose offices are located in Beverly Hills; and (3) The Noumand Law

16 Firm, PC, whose offices are located in Beverly Hills (see Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 3, In. 24-pg. 4, In. 8.)

17 Finally, coordinating these actions in San Mateo County will be extremely inconvenient for the
18 witnesses in the Davis Action, as most, if not all of the members of the class and the aggrieved employees
19 alleged in the Davis Action reside in Los Angeles County. Defendant operates out of two locations in
20 California: Los Angeles and San Francisco/Silicon Valley. (See RFJN, Exhibit C.) According to the CBA,
21 the Union’s is comprised of members who work as bus drivers exclusively within the Union’s jurisdiction
22 in Northem California. (See RFJN, ExhibitA, ExhibitA, pg. 1.) As such, none of the proposed non-union

23 class members or aggrieved employees alleged in the Davis A ction will be located in Northern Califomia.
24 Instead, they will be located in Los Angeles, which is outside of the Union’s jurisdiction.

26 | As Defendant has acknowledged, “The Union is a labor organization...which exists for the purpose of dealing
with employees concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, conditions of
27 work, discipline, and discharge”. (See RFJN, Exhibit B, pg. 7, Ins. 16-19.)
? While Defendant disingenuously argues that it is unaware of where Plaintiffs Davis and Harris reside, the
28 information is readily available on the Plaintiffs’ wage statements, which Defendant certainly has access to.

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
6
None of remaining factors set out in Code of Civil Procedure Section 404.1 support coordinating

the Included Actions either, including the relative development of the actions and the work product of

counsel, the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower, the calendar of the Courts, the risk of

duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders or judgments, or the likelihood of settlement of the actions

without further litigation should coordination be denied. As the Bush A ctions concer a class of employees

who reside in Northem California, and the Davis Action concerns a class of employees and aggrieved

employees who reside in Los Angeles County, the Included Actions should remain in their respective

Counties.

While Plaintiffs do not believe coordination is appropriate in this instance, if coordination is
10 granted, Los Angeles County, before the Honorable David S. Cunningham III, is most appropriate based
1 on the factors enumerated in Cal. R. Ct. 3.530(b)(1)-(8). The factors include: the number of included

12 actions in particular locations; whether the litigation is at an advanced stage in a particular court; the

13 efficient use of court facilities and judicial resources; the locations of witnesses and evidence; the

14 convenience of the parties and witnesses; the parties’ principal places of business; the office locations of

15 counsel for the parties; and the ease of travel to and availability of accommodations in particular locations.
16 (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.530(b).) Alternatively, Plaintiffs would request that, should coordination

17 be ordered, the coordinated proceedings be held separately in San Mateo and Los Angeles County Superior
18 Courts. See McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804, 813 ("That these cases
19 may be coordinated does not mean they need be tried in one forum; it does not even indicate that ultimate
20 trial of the cases need be unified.")

21 II. BACKGROUND
22 A. THE DAVIS ACTION
23 Plaintiff Davis filed her class action complaint on March 27, 2023, alleging claims for unpaid

24 minimum and overtime wages, non-provision of meal and rest breaks, failure to provide employment
25 records upon request, waiting time penalties and Unfair Competition. (Szmanda Decl., { 6.) The Parties
26 later stipulated to Plaintiff Davis filing an amended complaint for the purposes of adding Wynona Harris
27 as an additional plaintiff, limiting the class to only include non-union, non-exempt employees, and

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
7
asserting a representative PAGA action. (Szmanda Decl., 7.) The relevant Class Period in the Davis

Action is March 27, 2019 to the present. (Szmanda Decl., § 8.)

B. THE BUSH ACTIONS

Plaintiff Chatman filed a class action against Defendant in San Mateo Superior Court on June 2,

2022. (See Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 2, Ins. 3-4.) A first amended complaint was filed on January 5, 2024

for the purposes of replacing Chatman with Bush as the class representative, dismissing claims for unpaid

overtime and the non-provision of meal breaks, and redefining the class as only including non-exempt

members of the Union who are subjectto the CBA. (See Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 2, Ins. 5-9, citing Braham

Decl., 4.) The claims asserted in the Bush Actions are limited to unpaid minimum wages, non-provision

10 of rest breaks, unlawful wage statements, waiting time penalties and Unfair Competition. (See Petition,

1 Exhibit B, pg. 2, Ins. 11-15, citing Braham Decl., 4.) There is no PAGA action alleged in the Bush
12 Actions. (Id.)

13 Til. LEGAL ARGUMENT
14 A. Defendant Has Not Demonstrated That C coordination of the Included Actions Will
Promote the Ends of J ustice Under the Factors Set Out In Code of Civil Procedure
15 Section 404.1
16 Section 404.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes coordination of civil cases pending in

17 different courts that "shar{e] a common question of fact or law" if it:
“will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact
18
or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of the parties,
19 witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of
counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the
20 courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent nulings, orders, or judgments; and,
the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be
21 denied.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1.)
22 Rule 5.521(a)(7) of the California Rules of Court requires that a party moving for coordination
23 submit declarations providing "[t]he facts relied on to show that each included action meets the
24 coordination standards specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1." (CRC, Rule 5.521(a)(7).)
25 Defendant has failed to do so here. Rather, Defendant provides misleading descriptions of the claims in
26 the Included Actions, and on whose behalf they are asserted in an attempt to disguise the stark differences
27 between the Davis Action and the Bush Actions. The Court would be justified in denying Defendant
28

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
8
Petition on this basis alone.

The overriding objective of coordination is serving the ends of justice. See McGhan Med. Corp.

v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4" 804, 911. Coordinating the Included Actions will not serve this

objective, as the only Party that stands to benefit from coordination is Defendant, at the expense of

Plaintiffs Davis and Harris, their counsel and witnesses.
1, Common Questions of Fact or Law Are Not Predominating or Significant to the
Litigation
In order for the Included Actions to be considered for coordination, Defendant was required to

establish that they share common questions of fact or law. This is considered the "threshold" standard, as

it must be satisfied at the outset of the coordination procedures. Keenan v. Superior Court (1980) 111
10
Cal.App.3d 336, 341. The Petition should be denied because Defendant has failed to show that the Davis
1
Action and the Bush Actions involve common questions of fact or law. As described above, the Davis
12
Action concerns a class that is limited to non-union employees who are not subject to a CBA, while the
13
Bush Actions concern a class of union employees that are subjectto the CBA. As such, there is absolutely
14
no overlap with respect to the members of the classes at issue in the Included Actions.
15
Furthermore, only the Davis Action asserts a representative PAGA action, and it is well
16
established that Class Actions and PAGA actions are not between the same parties. See Kim v. Reins
17
International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 81 (explaining how “every PAGA claim is ‘a dispute
18
between an employer and the state. ou ) “The government entity on whose behalf the plaintiff files suit is
19
always the real party in interest in the suit”. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59
20
Cal.4th 348, 382-383.
21
Moreover, even the claims that are alleged in both the Davis Action and the Bush Actions will
22
necessarily involve distinct issues of fact and law, as the terms and conditions of employment for the two
23
classes are governed by completely different sets of rules. The employment of the members of the class
24
in the Bush Actions are governed by the CBA, which “provides for wages that exceed 30% of the states’
25
minimum wage laws, hours of work, working conditions of the employees, and premium wage rates”.
26
(Szmanda Decl., 3, Exhibit 1; see also RFJN, Exhibit A.) On the other hand, the employment of the
27
members of the class in the Davis Action are governed by Defendant’s internal policies, procedures and
28

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
9
tules, and there is no evidence that Defendant’s internal policies, procedures and rules mirror those of the

CBA. (Szmanda Decl., § 4.)

Despite what Defendant argues in its Petition, common questions of fact and law do not

predominate, nor are significant to the Included Actions. The Plaintiffs and the classes of employees they

seek to represent in their respective actions do not: (1) encompass the same group of individuals (See

Petition, Exhibit A, Ins. 3-18); (2) cover the same relevant time periods (see Szmanda Decl., 16-9, see

also Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 1, Ins. 6-9); (3) concern the same employment policies, procedures and rules

(see RFJN, Exhibit A; see also Szmanda Decl., { 4); or (4) involve the same claims (see Szmanda Decl.,

42.). As such, this factor weighs against coordination.
10 2. The Convenience of Parties, Witnesses, and C ounsel

1 The only evidence that Defendant provides in support of its argument that coordinating the

12 Included Action will serve the convenience of the parties, witness and counsel is that: (1) since its

13 operations are based in Burlingame, California, San Mateo County is a much easier commute for its

14 witnesses compared to Los Angeles; and (2) Plaintiff Chatman’s employment records indicate that she

15 lives in or near Oakland, California. (Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 6, Ins. 4-12.) However, Defendant fails to

16 mention that Plaintiffs Davis and Harris both reside in Los Angeles (see Szmanda Decl., 5), most, if not

17 all of the class members and aggrieved employees at issue in the Davis Action reside in the Los Angeles

18 area (see Section I, infra, pg. 6, In. 18 — pg. 7, In. 1), and that counsel for all of the Parties are located in

19 either Los Angeles or Orange County (see Section I infra, pg. 6, Ins. 11-17). Thus, while coordination in

20 San Mateo County may be more convenient for Defendant, it will be extremely inconvenient for everyone

21 involved in the Davis Action, including the Plaintiffs, counsel forall Parties, the proposed class members

22 and the alleged aggrieved employees. This factor most certainly weighs against coordination.

23 3. The Relative Development of the Actions and the Work Product of Counsel Do
Not Support Coordination
24
Defendant does not argue that the Bush Actions are further along in the litigation than the Davis
25
Action such that coordination in San Mateo County is warranted. Defendant only argues that “there is
26
ample time for the plaintiffs to conduct streamlined discovery in an efficient manner”, and “coordination
27
would allow counsel for all parties to control their work product in orderto avoid repetitive efforts with
28

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
10
respect to discovery.” (See Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 6, Ins. 15-24.) Defendant fails to acknowledge that

discovery in the Included Actions will differ substantially, considering the actions seek to represent

completely distinct classes of employees who were subject to different employment policies, procedures

and rules, and also considering all of the claims that are alleged in the David Action that are not alleged

in the Bush Actions. As such, coordinating the Included Actions in San Mateo County will not allow

counsel for all parties to control their work product to avoid repetitive efforts with respect to discovery.

Defendant has therefore failed to establish that this factor weighs in favor or coordination.
4. Coordination Will Not Promote the Efficient Utilization of J udicial Facilities
and Manpower, or Reduce the Risk of Duplicative and Inconsistent Rulings,
Orders or J udgments
10 Defendant argues that coordination is extremely conducive to furthering judicial economy and

1 avoiding inconsistent rulings, orders or judgment, because two different judges sitting in two different

12 counties are currently presiding over the Included Actions. (See Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 6, In. 27 — pg. 7,

13 In. 5.) Defendant fails to explain how there could be a risk of inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments

14 given the Included Actions seek to represent completely distinct classes of employees who were subject

15 to different employment policies, procedures and rules. As a result, any rulings made in either of the class

16 actions would have no res judicata or claim preclusion effect on the other class action.

17 Defendant’s concern of the possibility of conflicting PAGA manageability rulings is also completely

18 unfounded, as the Davis Action is the only action with a PAGA claim, and the express language of the

19 PAGA unambiguously authorizes other wage and hour actions to proceed separately or concurrently. See

20 Labor Code section 2699(g)(1) (“Nothing in this part shall operate to limit an employee's right to pursue

21 or recover other remedies available under state or federal law, either separately or concurrently with an

22 action taken under this part.”); see also Baumann v. Chase Investment Service Corp., (9th Cir. 2014) 747

23 F.3d 1117, 1123 (acknowledging that “PAGA expressly provides that employees retain all rights ‘to

24 pursue or recover other remedies available under state or federal law, either separately or concurrently

25 with an action taken under this part.’”)

26 As inconsistent rulings, orders or judgments are not at risk if the Included Actions are not

27 coordinated, this factor weighs against coordination.

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
11
5. The Calendar of the Courts Does Not Support Coordination

Defendant argues that coordinating the Included Actions in San Mateo County Superior Court will

not negatively impact the calendar of the courts, because discovery, class certification, and pretrial

deadlines have not been set or heard in either of the Included Actions. (See Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 7, Ins.

23-27.) However, Defendant fails to acknowledge how coordination in San Mateo County will require the

Court to add another class action and representative PAGA action to its calendar. And considering that

the classes of employees that the Plaintiffs seek to represent in their respective actions will not encompass

the same groups of individuals, cover the same relevant time periods, concern the same employment

policies, procedures and rules, or involve the same claims, discovery in the Davis Action will be

10 completely different from discovery in the Bush Actions. Likewise, the Court will have to rule on two
1 separate motions for class certification, and given the differences in the parties, witnesses and claims, the

12 Court will have to conduct two separate trials. Thus, coordinating the Included Actions in San Mateo

13 County will cause an unnecessary strain on the calendar of court. As such, this factor weighs against
14 coordination.
6. The Likelihood of Settlement of the Actions Without Further Litigation Should
15
Coordination be Denied.
16 Defendant’s desire to reach a global settlement ofthe Included Actions “if the Parties were to ever
17 agree to a settlement” (see Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 7, Ins. 17-21) does not warrant coordinating the
18 Included Actions in San Mateo County Superior Court. The possibility of reaching a global settlement
19 somewhere down the line does not change the fact that the Included A ctions are not: (1) concern the same
20 classes of individuals; (2) cover the same relevant time periods; (3) involve the same employment policies,
21 procedures and rules; or (4) involve the same claims. In the event the Parties agree to a settlement down
22 the line, then they will be able to discuss the best way of effectuating the settlement and obtaining court
23 approval when the time comes. The mere fact that there is a possibility of the Parties reaching a global
24 settlement somewhere down the line does not justify the inconveniences that coordinating the Included
25 Actions in San Mateo County will cause to the Plaintiffs in the Davis Action, their counsel and witnesses,
26 all of whom reside in the Los Angeles area. Defendant has failed to establish that this factor weighs in
27 favor or coordination.
28

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
12
B. Defendant Has Failed To Demonstrate That Each Included Action Meets The
Coordination Standards Of C.C.P. Section 404.1
Defendant was required by Rule 5.521(a)(7) of the California Rules of Court to show that each

included action meets the coordination standards specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1."

(CRC, Rule 5.521(a)(7).) Defendant has failed to do so. Instead, Defendant has merely shown that

coordinating the Included Actions in San Mateo County will be more convenient for itself. As such, the

Petition should be denied.

C. Should The Court Be Inclined To Grant Defendant’s Petition, Los Angeles County Is
The Appropriate Venue For The Coordinated Proceedings

While Plaintiffs do not believe coordination is appropriate in this instance, if coordination is

10 granted, Los Angeles County Superior Court, before the Honorable David S. Cunningham III, is most

1 appropriate based on the factors enumerated in Cal. R. Ct. 3.530(b)(1)-(8)

12 1, The Number of Included Actions in Particular Locations

13 Defendant argues that this factor supports coordination in San Mateo County because the

14 Bush/Chatman action covers the entire relevant time period of both the Included Actions. (See Petition,

15 Exhibit B, pg. 9, Ins. 4-6.) Defendant’s argument is without merit for two reasons. First, this factor

16 analyzes whether any court has more Included Actions before it, not which of the Included Actions has

17 the longer class period. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.530(b)(1).) The second reason is that, although the Bush/Chatman

18 action may have been filed first, the Davis Action has the longer class period. While Defendant contends

19 that class period in the Bush Actions goes back to January 5, 2020 (see Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 2, Ins. 6-

20 8), the class period in the Davis Action goes back to March 27, 2019. (Szmanda Decl., 7.) Furthermore,

21 the Davis Action is the only case that alleges a class action and a representative PAGA action, which will

22 require separate trials. See LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Store (2022) 75 Cal.App.Sth 388, 400-402

23 (explaining PAGA actions are not subject to jury trials because they are substitutes for administrative

24 proceedings and the statute is subject to a variety of equitable factors.) This factor should therefore favor

25 coordination in Los Angeles County.

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
13
2. Whether the Litigation is at an Advanced Stage in a Particular C ourt

Plaintiff agrees with Defendant that this factor does not favor either location. (See Petition, Exhibit

B, pg. 9, Ins. 8-9.)

3. The Efficient Use of C ourt Facilities and J udicial Resources

Defendant has not argued that this factor favors San Mateo County, but Plaintiff believes that this

factor favors Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles Superior Court's complex litigation program has

sufficient resources and expertise to manage the Included Actions. Also, apart from the availability of

remote appearances via LACourtConnect, it is a convenient and accessible location for the Parties and

their counsel.
10 4. The Locations of Witnesses and Evidence
1 Defendant claims that this factor favors San Mateo County because Defendant’s headquarters are

12 located there and because Plaintiff Chatman resides near Oakland, California. (Petition, pg. 9, Ins. 11-15.)

13 While San Mateo County may be more convenient for Defendant, it will be extremely inconvenient for
14 the witnesses in the Davis Action, as most, if not all of the class members and aggrieved employees at
15 issue in the Davis Action are located in the Los Angeles area. (See Section I, infra, pg. 6, In. 18 — pg. 7,

16 In. 1) As such, this factor favors Los Angeles County.
17 5. The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses

18 Defendant claims that this factor also favors San Mateo County because Defendant is located there

19 (Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 9, Ins. 17-19), but Defendant’s convenience level is not the only thing that matters.

20 Plaintiffs Davis and Harris both reside in Los Angeles County (see Szmanda Decl., 5), and most, if not

21 all of the class members and aggrieved employees at issue in the Davis Action are located in the Los

22 Angeles area (see Section I, infra, pg. 6, In. 18 — pg. 7, In. 1). What is more convenient for the class

23 members and aggrieved employees should carry more weight than Defendant’s convenience level. Thus,

24 this factor favors coordination in Los Angeles County.

25 6. The Parties’ Principal Places of Business

26 While Defendant’s principal place of business is in San Mateo County, Plaintiff's Davis and Harris

27 both reside in Los Angeles County. (See Szmanda Decl., 5.) Because Defendant has significantly more

28 resources that Plaintiffs Davis and Harris, it will be much easier for them to commute to Los Angeles

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
14
County than it would be for Plaintiff's Davis and Harris to commute to San Mateo County. As such, this

factor favors coordination in Los Angeles County.

7. The Office Locations of C ounsel for the Parties

Defendant completely ignored this factor in its Petition, for obvious reasons. Counsel for all

Parties, including Defendant’s counsel, have their offices in either Los Angeles or Orange Counties. (See

Section I, infra, pg. 6, Ins. 11-18.) This factor heavily favors coordination in Los Angeles County.

8. The Ease of Travel to and Availability of Accommodations in Particular
Locations
Plaintiff agrees with Defendant that this factor does not favor either location.

10 As shown above, six out of the eight factors heavily favor coordinating the Included Actions in
1 Los Angeles County. While Plaintiffs do not believe that coordination is appropriate in this instance, in
12 the event coordination is ordered, it should be ordered in Los Angeles County. Altematively, Plaintiffs
13 would request that the coordinated proceedings be held separately in San Mateo and Los Angeles County
14 Superior Courts. See McGhan Medical Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804, 813 ("That
15 these cases may be coordinated does not mean they need be tried in one forum; it does not even indicate
16 that ultimate trial of the cases need be unified.")
17 D. The Included Actions Should Not Be Stayed Pending Determination the Petition
18 As an initial matter, Defendant’s request that the Included Actions be stayed does not comply with
19 Rule 3.515 of the California Rules of Court. Pursuant to Rule 3.515, a motion fora stay order must: (1)
20 list all known pending related cases; (2) State whether the stay order should extend to any such related
21 case; and (3) Be supported by a memorandum and by declarations establishing the facts relied on to show
22 that a stay order is necessary and appropriate to effectuate the purpose of coordination. (CRC, Rule
23 3.514.) Here, Defendant has failed to support its request for a stay by a memorandum and by declarations
24 establishing the facts relied on to show that a stay order is necessary and appropriate to effectuate the
25 purpose of coordination, as required by Rule 3.515(b)(3). (See Petition, Exhibit B, pg. 1, Ins. 11-13.) As
26 such, Defendant’s request that the Included Actions be stayed should be denied.
27

PLAINTIFFS MECIA DAVIS’S AND WYNONA HARRIS’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WEDRIVEU, INC.’S
PETITION FOR COORDINATION
15
Iv. CONCLUSION

Coordination is meant to be used as a tool of efficiency, not a lasso to be used to pull in another

distinct action for the mere convenience of Defendant.

Case Info

Judge

Finigan, Jeffrey R. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 10, 2024

Case Filing Date

April 24, 2023

County

Parties

BRAHAM, CHRISTOPHER A Attorney for the Defendant
Bush, Antonio Plaintiff
DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE Defendant
LAVI, JOSEPH Attorney for the Plaintiff
WEDRIVEU, INC. Defendant
Vincent Granberry Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Norman Blumenthal Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kyle Nordrehaug Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Nicholas De Blouw Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Christine Le Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Andrew Ronan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Brett Szmanda Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Nourmand Attorneys for Plaintiffs
James De Sario Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ivan Perez Medina Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Danielle Montero Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Christine LeVu Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Aparajit Bhowmik Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Victoria Rivapalacio Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Antonio Bush vs WEDRIVEU, INC.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties