Preview
1 Elizabeth Parker-Fawley (SBN 301592)
Won Christina Chang (SBN 325167)
2 Dominic Scarangella (SBN 347695)
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
3 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
4 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – SANTA MARIA COOK DIVISION
8
9
ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA, individually, Case No. 21CV01369
10 and on behalf of other members of the Consolidated with Case No. 21CV02046
general public similarly situated;
Honorable James F. Rigali
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Plaintiff, Department SM 2
Glendale, California 91203
12
vs.
13 DECLARATION OF DOMINIC
SCARANGELLA IN SUPPORT OF
14 NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., an PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
unknown business entity; FOUNTAIN DEFENDANT NORTHSTAR SENIOR
15 SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, a California LIVING, INC. TO PROVIDE FURTHER
limited liability company; and DOES 1 RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL
16 through 100, inclusive, INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
17 Defendants.
[Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion to
18 ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA, Compel, Rule 3.1345 Separate Statement, and
individually, and on behalf of other [Proposed] Order filed herewith.]
19 aggrieved employees pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act;
20 Hearing Date: May 21, 2024
Plaintiff, Time: 8:30 a.m.
21 Department: SM 2
vs.
22 Class Action Filed: April 1, 2021
Class Action FAC Filed: April 20, 2021
23 NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC.,
an unknown business entity; FOUNTAIN PAGA Action Filed: May 25, 2021
24 SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, a Jury Trial Date: None Set
California limited liability company; and
25 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
26 Defendants.
27
28
DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA
1 DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA
2 I, Dominic Scarangella, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of
4 California. I am a member of LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC, attorneys of record for Plaintiff
5 Aspen Cruz-Bocanegra (“Plaintiff”) in the above-entitled action. I have personal knowledge of
6 the facts and statements set forth in this declaration, and if called upon to testify, I could and
7 would competently testify thereto.
8 2. On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint for Damages.
9 3. On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint for
10 Damages. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the operative Complaint.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11 4. On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff propounded initial discovery to Defendant Northstar
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12 Senior Living, Inc. (“Defendant”), including Special Interrogatories (Set Two). Attached hereto
13 as Exhibit B is Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories (Set Two) to Defendant and Proof of Service.
14 5. In August 2021, the Parties began discussions regarding potential private
15 mediation and continued to discuss mediation over the following months.
16 6. Over the course of several months, Defendant requested and Plaintiff granted
17 extensions on Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery as the Parties continued to discuss
18 setting mediation. A true and correct copy of the email correspondence with the extensions are
19 attached hereto as Exhibit C.
20 7. On April 27, 2022, the Parties met and conferred telephonically and Defendant’s
21 Counsel memorialized the conversation in an email. In addition to memorializing the telephonic
22 conversation, Defendant’s Counsel requested an extension to their deadline to respond to
23 Plaintiff’s discovery responses, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two). On May 11, 2022
24 Defendant’s Counsel followed up via email on its requested extension. On May 13, 2022,
25 Defendant’s Counsel followed up again via email on its requested extension. On May 13, 2022,
26 Plaintiff’s counsel responded, granting a 30 day extension of Defendant’s deadline to respond to
27 Plaintiff’s discovery to June 17, 2022 and mentioned that once mediation was set Plaintiff would
28 be amenable to an extension of Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery,
1
DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA
1 including Special Interrogatories (Set Two) to 30 days after mediation. A true and correct copy
2 of the email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
3 8. On June 28, 2022, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel confirming an
4 extension to Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery including Special
5 Interrogatories (Set Two) to July 31, 2022. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Counsel’s
6 email is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
7 9. On February 10, 2023, the Parties set mediation with the mediator Hon. Daniel
8 Buckley (Ret.) for June 19, 2023.
9 10. On June 19, 2023, the Parties attended mediation with the mediator Hon. Daniel
10 Buckley (Ret.). Mediation was unsuccessful.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11 11. On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12 informing them that per the May 13, 2022 email agreement, Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s
13 discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two) were due 30 days after mediation if
14 mediation proved to be unsuccessful and that as no responses were ever served on Plaintiff,
15 Defendant had thus waived all objections to Plaintiff’s discovery and requested full and
16 substantive responses to the discovery without delay. On that same day, Defendant responded
17 informing Plaintiff’s counsel that the handling attorney was no longer at the firm and that
18 someone at Defendant’s Counsel’s firm would respond. On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel
19 followed up with Defendant's counsel via email. On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel
20 followed up again via email. On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up yet again via
21 email, informing Defendant’s counsel that if we did not receive Defendant’s discovery responses
22 by the end of the week or an agreed upon date certain for their production, Plaintiff would have
23 no choice but to move to compel responses and request sanctions. A true and correct copy of the
24 email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
25 12. On February 1, 2024, Defendant’s Counsel responded confirming they were in
26 receipt of Plaintiff’s Counsel inquiry and stated they were working on the responses. On that
27 same day, Plaintiff’s counsel responded reaffirming that if Plaintiff does not receive responses or
28 a date certain for their production without objections as they have been waived by the end of the
2
DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA
1 week Plaintiff would file motions to compel responses and seek sanctions. On February 2, 2024,
2 Defendant’s Counsel responded that the discovery responses are in the works and that they
3 intended to serve them by February 29, 2024. On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel
4 responded that February 29, 2024 is not an acceptable date as they were due months ago and it
5 has taken seven weeks to get a response from Defendant about its failure to respond to discovery
6 and that Plaintiff expects responses without objection by February 14, 2024, and if that was not
7 agreeable to Defendant, Plaintiff would proceed with her motions. A true and correct copy of the
8 email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
9 13. On February 14, 2024, Defendant served its objection-only responses to
10 Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two). Attached hereto as Exhibit H
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11 are Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two).
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12 14. On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter regarding
13 Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery including Special Interrogatories (Set Two)
14 explaining that all objections by Defendant had been waived for failure to respond timely and
15 that Defendant’s objection-only responses were improper. In that letter Plaintiff requested
16 Defendant to withdraw its unfounded objections and provide supplemental responses and
17 responsive documents by February 20, 2024. A true and correct copy of the meet and confer
18 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
19 15. On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel requested a two week extension of
20 Plaintiff’s motion to compel deadlines via email. That same day, Defendant’s counsel responded,
21 via email, granting the extension making Plaintiff’s deadline to move to compel further
22 responses, April 15, 2024. A true and correct copy of the email correspondence is attached hereto
23 as Exhibit J.
24 16. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel followed up with Defendant’s counsel, via
25 email requesting confirmation as to when Defendant anticipated providing full, substantive, and
26 objections-free supplemental response to Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special Interrogatories
27 (Set Two). A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit
28 K.
3
DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA
1 17. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff served deposition notices for Defendant’s Persons
2 Most Knowledgeable on Defendant. On March 12, 2024, Defendant’s counsel responded stating
3 it was under the impression the Parties were putting discovery on hold for settlement discussion,
4 assuming that was the reason for the requested extension to Plaintiff’s motion to compel
5 deadlines and further state they would assume discovery was on hold until the matter is settled or
6 the parties decide a resolution cannot be reached. On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel
7 responded via email unequivocally denying any informal stays or holds on discovery were
8 discussed, and reaffirmed that Defendant had waived all objections to its untimely responses to
9 Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and that should Defendant not
10 agree to provide full, objections-free, supplemental response to Plaintiff’s discovery, Plaintiff
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
11 would move forward with filing her motions to compel within the week. A true and correct copy
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, California 91203
12 of the email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
13 18. To date no further response has been provided by Defendant, leaving the Parties
14 at an impasse.
15 19. I spent approximately five (5) hours preparing this Motion to Compel. Won
16 Christina Chang spent approximately three (3) hours reviewing and revising this Motion. I spent
17 approximately one (1) hour finalizing this Motion. I expect to spend an additional four (4) hours
18 reviewing Defendant’s opposition, drafting a reply, preparing for and attending the hearing on
19 Plaintiff’s Motion. My billing rate is $500.00 per hour. Ms. Chang’s billing rate is $650.00 per
20 hour. Accordingly, the costs in legal fees for having to bring this Motion will be at least
21 $6,950.00.
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
23 foregoing is true and correct.
24 Executed this 27th day of March 2024, at Glendale, California.
25
26 ____________________________
Dominic Scarangella
27
28
4
DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA
Exhibit A
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
1 Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 4/20/2021 2:30 PM
2 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 By: Sharon Leyden, Deputy
Glendale, California 91203
3 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021
4 Attorneys for Plaintiff
5 No Summons FIled
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – SANTA MARIA-COOK DIVISION
9
ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA, individually, Case No.: 21CV01369
10 and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated; Honorable James F. Rigali
11 Department 2
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
Plaintiff,
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
12 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
Glendale, California 91203
vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13
NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., an (1) Violation of California Labor Code
14 unknown business entity; FOUNTAIN §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid
SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, a California Overtime);
15 limited liability company; and DOES 1 (2) Violation of California Labor Code
through 100, inclusive, §§ 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal
16 Period Premiums);
Defendants. (3) Violation of California Labor Code
17 § 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period
Premiums);
18 (4) Violation of California Labor Code
§§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (Unpaid
19 Minimum Wages);
(5) Violation of California Labor Code
20 §§ 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not
Timely Paid);
21 (6) Violation of California Labor Code
§ 204 (Wages Not Timely Paid
22 During Employment);
(7) Violation of California Labor Code
23 § 226(a) (Non-Compliant Wage
Statements);
24 (8) Violation of California Labor Code
§ 1174(d) (Failure To Keep
25 Requisite Payroll Records);
(9) Violation of California Labor Code
26 §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unreimbursed
Business Expenses);
27 (10) Violation of California Business &
Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.
28
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA (“Plaintiff”), individually, and
2 on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and alleges as follows:
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 1. This class action is brought pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure
5 section 382. The monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff exceeds the minimal
6 jurisdiction limits of the Superior Court and will be established according to proof at trial. The
7 “amount in controversy” for the named Plaintiff, including but not limited to claims for
8 compensatory damages, restitution, penalties, wages, premium pay, and pro rata share of
9 attorneys’ fees, is less than seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).
10 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California
11 Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, which grants the superior court “original jurisdiction in all
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
12 other causes” except those given by statute to other courts. The statutes under which this
Glendale, California 91203
13 action is brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction.
14 3. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because, upon information and
15 belief, Defendants are citizens of California, have sufficient minimum contacts in California,
16 or otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market so as to render the exercise
17 of jurisdiction over them by California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play
18 and substantial justice.
19 4. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Defendants
20 maintain offices, have agents, employ individuals, and/or transact business in the State of
21 California, County of Santa Barbara. The majority of acts and omissions alleged herein relating
22 to Plaintiff and the other class members took place in the State of California, including the
23 County of Santa Barbara.
24 PARTIES
25 5. Defendant NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., at all times herein
26 mentioned, was and is, upon information and belief, an employer whose employees are
27 engaged throughout the State of California, including the County of Santa Barbara.
28 ///
2
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 6. Defendant FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, at all times herein
2 mentioned, was and is, upon information and belief, a California limited liability company and,
3 at all times herein mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout the State of
4 California, including the County of Santa Barbara.
5 7. At all relevant times, Defendants NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC. and
6 FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC were the “employer” of Plaintiff within the meaning
7 of all applicable California laws and statutes.
8 8. At all times herein relevant, Defendants NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC.,
9 FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, were
10 the agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees,
11 successors-in-interest, co-conspirators and/or assigns, each of the other, and at all times
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
12 relevant hereto were acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents,
Glendale, California 91203
13 partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, successors, co-
14 conspirators and/or assigns, and all acts or omissions alleged herein were duly committed with
15 the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization and/or consent of each
16 defendant designated as a DOE herein.
17 9. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual or
18 otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who sue
19 said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that
20 information and belief alleges, that each of the defendants designated as a DOE is legally
21 responsible for the events and happenings referred to in this Complaint, and unlawfully caused
22 the injuries and damages to Plaintiff and the other class members as alleged in this Complaint.
23 Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and
24 capacities when the same have been ascertained.
25 10. Defendant NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF
26 LOMPOC LLC, and DOES 1 through 100 will hereinafter collectively be referred to as
27 “Defendants.”
28 ///
3
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 11. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants directly or indirectly controlled or
2 affected the working conditions, wages, working hours, and conditions of employment of
3 Plaintiff and the other class members so as to make each of said Defendants employers liable
4 under the statutory provisions set forth herein.
5 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
6 12. Plaintiff bring this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all other members
7 of the general public similarly situated, and, thus, seeks class certification under California
8 Code of Civil Procedure section 382.
9 13. The proposed class is defined as follows:
10 All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for
11 any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
12 period from April 1, 2017 to final judgment and who reside in California.
Glendale, California 91203
13 (Subclass A) All class members who worked for any of the Defendants at Arbor
14 Palms of Anaheim, Casa Aldea, Fallbrook Glen of West Hills, Fountain Square
15 of Lompoc, Madonna Gardens, Ocean Hills, Pacifica Country Crest, Pacifica
16 Merced, Paintbrush, Paramount House, Park Visalia, Pleasant Hill Manor,
17 Regency Place, Sakura Gardens, Sierra Vista, Stonewall Gardens, Terraza Court
18 of Culver City, Terraza of Cheviot Hills, The Gardens of Riverside, Twelve
19 Oaks, Valley Crest Memory Care, Villa at Castro Valley, Vineyard Ranch at
20 Temecula, Vista at Simi Valley, or Vista Prado.
21 14. Plaintiff reserves the right to establish additional subclasses as appropriate.
22 15. The class is ascertainable and there is a well-defined community of interest in
23 the litigation:
24 a. Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that joinder of all class
25 members is impracticable. The membership of the entire class is
26 unknown to Plaintiff at this time; however, the class is estimated to be
27 greater than fifty (50) individuals and the identity of such membership is
28 readily ascertainable by inspection of Defendants’ employment records.
4
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 b. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of all other class members’ as
2 demonstrated herein. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the
3 interests of the other class members with whom she has a well-defined
4 community of interest.
5 c. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
6 each class member, with whom she has a well-defined community of
7 interest and typicality of claims, as demonstrated herein. Plaintiff has no
8 interest that is antagonistic to the other class members. Plaintiff’s
9 attorneys, the proposed class counsel, are versed in the rules governing
10 class action discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiff has
11 incurred, and during the pendency of this action will continue to incur,
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
12 costs and attorneys’ fees, that have been, are, and will be necessarily
Glendale, California 91203
13 expended for the prosecution of this action for the substantial benefit of
14 each class member.
15 d. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the
16 fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation because individual joinder
17 of all class members is impractical.
18 e. Public Policy Considerations: Certification of this lawsuit as a class
19 action will advance public policy objectives. Employers of this great
20 state violate employment and labor laws every day. Current employees
21 are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect
22 retaliation. However, class actions provide the class members who are
23 not named in the complaint anonymity that allows for the vindication of
24 their rights.
25 16. There are common questions of law and fact as to the class members that
26 predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The following common
27 questions of law or fact, among others, exist as to the members of the class:
28 ///
5
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 a. Whether Defendants’ failure to pay wages, without abatement or
Preview
1 Elizabeth Parker-Fawley (SBN 301592) Won Christina Chang (SBN 325167) 2 Dominic Scarangella (SBN 347695) LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 3 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 4 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – SANTA MARIA COOK DIVISION 8 9 ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA, individually, Case No. 21CV01369 10 and on behalf of other members of the Consolidated with Case No. 21CV02046 general public similarly situated; Honorable James F. Rigali LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Plaintiff, Department SM 2 Glendale, California 91203 12 vs. 13 DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA IN SUPPORT OF 14 NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., an PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL unknown business entity; FOUNTAIN DEFENDANT NORTHSTAR SENIOR 15 SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, a California LIVING, INC. TO PROVIDE FURTHER limited liability company; and DOES 1 RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL 16 through 100, inclusive, INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO) AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 17 Defendants. [Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion to 18 ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA, Compel, Rule 3.1345 Separate Statement, and individually, and on behalf of other [Proposed] Order filed herewith.] 19 aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act; 20 Hearing Date: May 21, 2024 Plaintiff, Time: 8:30 a.m. 21 Department: SM 2 vs. 22 Class Action Filed: April 1, 2021 Class Action FAC Filed: April 20, 2021 23 NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., an unknown business entity; FOUNTAIN PAGA Action Filed: May 25, 2021 24 SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, a Jury Trial Date: None Set California limited liability company; and 25 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 26 Defendants. 27 28 DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA 1 DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA 2 I, Dominic Scarangella, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of 4 California. I am a member of LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC, attorneys of record for Plaintiff 5 Aspen Cruz-Bocanegra (“Plaintiff”) in the above-entitled action. I have personal knowledge of 6 the facts and statements set forth in this declaration, and if called upon to testify, I could and 7 would competently testify thereto. 8 2. On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint for Damages. 9 3. On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint for 10 Damages. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the operative Complaint. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 4. On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff propounded initial discovery to Defendant Northstar 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 Senior Living, Inc. (“Defendant”), including Special Interrogatories (Set Two). Attached hereto 13 as Exhibit B is Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories (Set Two) to Defendant and Proof of Service. 14 5. In August 2021, the Parties began discussions regarding potential private 15 mediation and continued to discuss mediation over the following months. 16 6. Over the course of several months, Defendant requested and Plaintiff granted 17 extensions on Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery as the Parties continued to discuss 18 setting mediation. A true and correct copy of the email correspondence with the extensions are 19 attached hereto as Exhibit C. 20 7. On April 27, 2022, the Parties met and conferred telephonically and Defendant’s 21 Counsel memorialized the conversation in an email. In addition to memorializing the telephonic 22 conversation, Defendant’s Counsel requested an extension to their deadline to respond to 23 Plaintiff’s discovery responses, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two). On May 11, 2022 24 Defendant’s Counsel followed up via email on its requested extension. On May 13, 2022, 25 Defendant’s Counsel followed up again via email on its requested extension. On May 13, 2022, 26 Plaintiff’s counsel responded, granting a 30 day extension of Defendant’s deadline to respond to 27 Plaintiff’s discovery to June 17, 2022 and mentioned that once mediation was set Plaintiff would 28 be amenable to an extension of Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery, 1 DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA 1 including Special Interrogatories (Set Two) to 30 days after mediation. A true and correct copy 2 of the email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 3 8. On June 28, 2022, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel confirming an 4 extension to Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery including Special 5 Interrogatories (Set Two) to July 31, 2022. A true and correct copy of Defendant’s Counsel’s 6 email is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 7 9. On February 10, 2023, the Parties set mediation with the mediator Hon. Daniel 8 Buckley (Ret.) for June 19, 2023. 9 10. On June 19, 2023, the Parties attended mediation with the mediator Hon. Daniel 10 Buckley (Ret.). Mediation was unsuccessful. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 11. On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 informing them that per the May 13, 2022 email agreement, Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s 13 discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two) were due 30 days after mediation if 14 mediation proved to be unsuccessful and that as no responses were ever served on Plaintiff, 15 Defendant had thus waived all objections to Plaintiff’s discovery and requested full and 16 substantive responses to the discovery without delay. On that same day, Defendant responded 17 informing Plaintiff’s counsel that the handling attorney was no longer at the firm and that 18 someone at Defendant’s Counsel’s firm would respond. On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel 19 followed up with Defendant's counsel via email. On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel 20 followed up again via email. On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel followed up yet again via 21 email, informing Defendant’s counsel that if we did not receive Defendant’s discovery responses 22 by the end of the week or an agreed upon date certain for their production, Plaintiff would have 23 no choice but to move to compel responses and request sanctions. A true and correct copy of the 24 email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 25 12. On February 1, 2024, Defendant’s Counsel responded confirming they were in 26 receipt of Plaintiff’s Counsel inquiry and stated they were working on the responses. On that 27 same day, Plaintiff’s counsel responded reaffirming that if Plaintiff does not receive responses or 28 a date certain for their production without objections as they have been waived by the end of the 2 DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA 1 week Plaintiff would file motions to compel responses and seek sanctions. On February 2, 2024, 2 Defendant’s Counsel responded that the discovery responses are in the works and that they 3 intended to serve them by February 29, 2024. On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel 4 responded that February 29, 2024 is not an acceptable date as they were due months ago and it 5 has taken seven weeks to get a response from Defendant about its failure to respond to discovery 6 and that Plaintiff expects responses without objection by February 14, 2024, and if that was not 7 agreeable to Defendant, Plaintiff would proceed with her motions. A true and correct copy of the 8 email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9 13. On February 14, 2024, Defendant served its objection-only responses to 10 Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two). Attached hereto as Exhibit H LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 are Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set Two). 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 14. On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter regarding 13 Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery including Special Interrogatories (Set Two) 14 explaining that all objections by Defendant had been waived for failure to respond timely and 15 that Defendant’s objection-only responses were improper. In that letter Plaintiff requested 16 Defendant to withdraw its unfounded objections and provide supplemental responses and 17 responsive documents by February 20, 2024. A true and correct copy of the meet and confer 18 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 19 15. On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel requested a two week extension of 20 Plaintiff’s motion to compel deadlines via email. That same day, Defendant’s counsel responded, 21 via email, granting the extension making Plaintiff’s deadline to move to compel further 22 responses, April 15, 2024. A true and correct copy of the email correspondence is attached hereto 23 as Exhibit J. 24 16. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel followed up with Defendant’s counsel, via 25 email requesting confirmation as to when Defendant anticipated providing full, substantive, and 26 objections-free supplemental response to Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special Interrogatories 27 (Set Two). A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s email is attached hereto as Exhibit 28 K. 3 DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA 1 17. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff served deposition notices for Defendant’s Persons 2 Most Knowledgeable on Defendant. On March 12, 2024, Defendant’s counsel responded stating 3 it was under the impression the Parties were putting discovery on hold for settlement discussion, 4 assuming that was the reason for the requested extension to Plaintiff’s motion to compel 5 deadlines and further state they would assume discovery was on hold until the matter is settled or 6 the parties decide a resolution cannot be reached. On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel 7 responded via email unequivocally denying any informal stays or holds on discovery were 8 discussed, and reaffirmed that Defendant had waived all objections to its untimely responses to 9 Plaintiff’s discovery, including Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and that should Defendant not 10 agree to provide full, objections-free, supplemental response to Plaintiff’s discovery, Plaintiff LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 11 would move forward with filing her motions to compel within the week. A true and correct copy 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, California 91203 12 of the email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit L. 13 18. To date no further response has been provided by Defendant, leaving the Parties 14 at an impasse. 15 19. I spent approximately five (5) hours preparing this Motion to Compel. Won 16 Christina Chang spent approximately three (3) hours reviewing and revising this Motion. I spent 17 approximately one (1) hour finalizing this Motion. I expect to spend an additional four (4) hours 18 reviewing Defendant’s opposition, drafting a reply, preparing for and attending the hearing on 19 Plaintiff’s Motion. My billing rate is $500.00 per hour. Ms. Chang’s billing rate is $650.00 per 20 hour. Accordingly, the costs in legal fees for having to bring this Motion will be at least 21 $6,950.00. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 23 foregoing is true and correct. 24 Executed this 27th day of March 2024, at Glendale, California. 25 26 ____________________________ Dominic Scarangella 27 28 4 DECLARATION OF DOMINIC SCARANGELLA Exhibit A ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara 1 Edwin Aiwazian (SBN 232943) Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 4/20/2021 2:30 PM 2 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 By: Sharon Leyden, Deputy Glendale, California 91203 3 Tel: (818) 265-1020 / Fax: (818) 265-1021 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 No Summons FIled 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – SANTA MARIA-COOK DIVISION 9 ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA, individually, Case No.: 21CV01369 10 and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Honorable James F. Rigali 11 Department 2 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC Plaintiff, 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 12 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION Glendale, California 91203 vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13 NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., an (1) Violation of California Labor Code 14 unknown business entity; FOUNTAIN §§ 510 and 1198 (Unpaid SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, a California Overtime); 15 limited liability company; and DOES 1 (2) Violation of California Labor Code through 100, inclusive, §§ 226.7 and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal 16 Period Premiums); Defendants. (3) Violation of California Labor Code 17 § 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums); 18 (4) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (Unpaid 19 Minimum Wages); (5) Violation of California Labor Code 20 §§ 201 and 202 (Final Wages Not Timely Paid); 21 (6) Violation of California Labor Code § 204 (Wages Not Timely Paid 22 During Employment); (7) Violation of California Labor Code 23 § 226(a) (Non-Compliant Wage Statements); 24 (8) Violation of California Labor Code § 1174(d) (Failure To Keep 25 Requisite Payroll Records); (9) Violation of California Labor Code 26 §§ 2800 and 2802 (Unreimbursed Business Expenses); 27 (10) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 28 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff ASPEN CRUZ-BOCANEGRA (“Plaintiff”), individually, and 2 on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and alleges as follows: 3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 1. This class action is brought pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure 5 section 382. The monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiff exceeds the minimal 6 jurisdiction limits of the Superior Court and will be established according to proof at trial. The 7 “amount in controversy” for the named Plaintiff, including but not limited to claims for 8 compensatory damages, restitution, penalties, wages, premium pay, and pro rata share of 9 attorneys’ fees, is less than seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). 10 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California 11 Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, which grants the superior court “original jurisdiction in all LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 12 other causes” except those given by statute to other courts. The statutes under which this Glendale, California 91203 13 action is brought do not specify any other basis for jurisdiction. 14 3. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because, upon information and 15 belief, Defendants are citizens of California, have sufficient minimum contacts in California, 16 or otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market so as to render the exercise 17 of jurisdiction over them by California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play 18 and substantial justice. 19 4. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Defendants 20 maintain offices, have agents, employ individuals, and/or transact business in the State of 21 California, County of Santa Barbara. The majority of acts and omissions alleged herein relating 22 to Plaintiff and the other class members took place in the State of California, including the 23 County of Santa Barbara. 24 PARTIES 25 5. Defendant NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., at all times herein 26 mentioned, was and is, upon information and belief, an employer whose employees are 27 engaged throughout the State of California, including the County of Santa Barbara. 28 /// 2 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 6. Defendant FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, at all times herein 2 mentioned, was and is, upon information and belief, a California limited liability company and, 3 at all times herein mentioned, an employer whose employees are engaged throughout the State of 4 California, including the County of Santa Barbara. 5 7. At all relevant times, Defendants NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC. and 6 FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC were the “employer” of Plaintiff within the meaning 7 of all applicable California laws and statutes. 8 8. At all times herein relevant, Defendants NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., 9 FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF LOMPOC LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, were 10 the agents, partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, 11 successors-in-interest, co-conspirators and/or assigns, each of the other, and at all times LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 12 relevant hereto were acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents, Glendale, California 91203 13 partners, joint venturers, joint employers, representatives, servants, employees, successors, co- 14 conspirators and/or assigns, and all acts or omissions alleged herein were duly committed with 15 the ratification, knowledge, permission, encouragement, authorization and/or consent of each 16 defendant designated as a DOE herein. 17 9. The true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual or 18 otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who sue 19 said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that 20 information and belief alleges, that each of the defendants designated as a DOE is legally 21 responsible for the events and happenings referred to in this Complaint, and unlawfully caused 22 the injuries and damages to Plaintiff and the other class members as alleged in this Complaint. 23 Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and 24 capacities when the same have been ascertained. 25 10. Defendant NORTHSTAR SENIOR LIVING, INC., FOUNTAIN SQUARE OF 26 LOMPOC LLC, and DOES 1 through 100 will hereinafter collectively be referred to as 27 “Defendants.” 28 /// 3 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 11. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants directly or indirectly controlled or 2 affected the working conditions, wages, working hours, and conditions of employment of 3 Plaintiff and the other class members so as to make each of said Defendants employers liable 4 under the statutory provisions set forth herein. 5 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 6 12. Plaintiff bring this action on her own behalf and on behalf of all other members 7 of the general public similarly situated, and, thus, seeks class certification under California 8 Code of Civil Procedure section 382. 9 13. The proposed class is defined as follows: 10 All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for 11 any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 12 period from April 1, 2017 to final judgment and who reside in California. Glendale, California 91203 13 (Subclass A) All class members who worked for any of the Defendants at Arbor 14 Palms of Anaheim, Casa Aldea, Fallbrook Glen of West Hills, Fountain Square 15 of Lompoc, Madonna Gardens, Ocean Hills, Pacifica Country Crest, Pacifica 16 Merced, Paintbrush, Paramount House, Park Visalia, Pleasant Hill Manor, 17 Regency Place, Sakura Gardens, Sierra Vista, Stonewall Gardens, Terraza Court 18 of Culver City, Terraza of Cheviot Hills, The Gardens of Riverside, Twelve 19 Oaks, Valley Crest Memory Care, Villa at Castro Valley, Vineyard Ranch at 20 Temecula, Vista at Simi Valley, or Vista Prado. 21 14. Plaintiff reserves the right to establish additional subclasses as appropriate. 22 15. The class is ascertainable and there is a well-defined community of interest in 23 the litigation: 24 a. Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that joinder of all class 25 members is impracticable. The membership of the entire class is 26 unknown to Plaintiff at this time; however, the class is estimated to be 27 greater than fifty (50) individuals and the identity of such membership is 28 readily ascertainable by inspection of Defendants’ employment records. 4 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 b. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of all other class members’ as 2 demonstrated herein. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the 3 interests of the other class members with whom she has a well-defined 4 community of interest. 5 c. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of 6 each class member, with whom she has a well-defined community of 7 interest and typicality of claims, as demonstrated herein. Plaintiff has no 8 interest that is antagonistic to the other class members. Plaintiff’s 9 attorneys, the proposed class counsel, are versed in the rules governing 10 class action discovery, certification, and settlement. Plaintiff has 11 incurred, and during the pendency of this action will continue to incur, LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 12 costs and attorneys’ fees, that have been, are, and will be necessarily Glendale, California 91203 13 expended for the prosecution of this action for the substantial benefit of 14 each class member. 15 d. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the 16 fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation because individual joinder 17 of all class members is impractical. 18 e. Public Policy Considerations: Certification of this lawsuit as a class 19 action will advance public policy objectives. Employers of this great 20 state violate employment and labor laws every day. Current employees 21 are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect 22 retaliation. However, class actions provide the class members who are 23 not named in the complaint anonymity that allows for the vindication of 24 their rights. 25 16. There are common questions of law and fact as to the class members that 26 predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The following common 27 questions of law or fact, among others, exist as to the members of the class: 28 /// 5 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 a. Whether Defendants’ failure to pay wages, without abatement or