arrow left
arrow right
  • Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
  • Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
  • Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
  • Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. Other Employment Unlimited (15)  document preview
						
                                

Preview

14 is 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) shaun@setarehlaw.com William M. Pao (SBN 219846) william@setarehlaw.com Alexandra R. McIntosh (SBN 320904) alex@setarehlaw.com SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Attorneys for Plaintiff SYLVESTER LACY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SYLVESTER LACY, on behalf of himself, Case No. 17-cv-310761 and all other similarly situated, Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle, Department 5 Plaintiffs, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT v. CONFERENCE STATEMENT HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Complaint Filed: May 22, 2017 Trial Date: Not Set Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-313651 SYLVESTER LACY, on behalf of himself, and all other similarly situated, and the general | Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable public, Thomas E. Kuhnle, Department 5 Plaintiff, v. HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; | Complaint Filed: July 27, 2017 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Trial Date: Not Set Defendants. Page 1 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. aes Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENTwon 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 | SYLVESTER LACY, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; NORTH AMERICAN PHILIPS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; RYDER SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. SYLVESTER LACY, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, VS. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; NORTH AMERICAN PHILIPS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; RYDER SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida corporation; KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Page 2 Case No.: 17-cv-310761 Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle, Department 5 Complaint Filed: May 22, 2017 Trial Date: Not Set Case No.: 17-cv-313651 Assigned For All Purposes To The Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle, Department 5 Complaint Filed: May 22, 2017 Trial Date: Not Set Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT1 | Linda S. Husar (SBN 93989) 2 3) 4 no ow 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 lhusar@reedsmith.com Mara D. Curtis (SBN 268869) meurtis@reedsmith.com REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 Attorneys for Defendant RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC. Mark L. Eisenhut (SBN 185039) meisenhut@calljensen.com Ellen Cohen (SBN 276458) rboyer@calljensen.com CALL & JENSEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717-3000 Facsimile: (949) 717-3 100 Attorneys for Defendant KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC. Page 3 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. Lacy y. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff SYLVESTER LACY (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC. (“Ryder”), and KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC. (“Kimco”) (“Ryder” and “Kimco” as “Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), submit this Joint Case Management Conference statement for the above captioned cases in advance of the Case Management Conference currently set for August 16, 2019. I. ADDING PARTIES Plaintiff does not anticipate adding additional parties at this time. If. STATUS OF DISCOVERY AND CLASS CERTIFICATION a. Plaintiff's Position: Plaintiff served first set of written discovery on Defendants encompassing of Special Interrogatories (Set One and Set Two), Employment Form Interrogatories (Set One), Request for Admissions (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). Defendants have served its responses in the related action. Plaintiff has evaluated Defendants responses and determined that the responses are deficient in many respects. i. Ryder’s Responses: With regards to Defendant Ryder’s Responses, Ryder has not provided the class list or any discovery related to the class members, including payroll and time records. Instead, Ryder contends that it only conducts security checks at a limited number of locations and seeks to limit discovery to those locations. Ryder Plaintiff and Ryder are now in the process of meeting and conferring regarding Ryder’s contention, including the supplemental declarations that were provided by Ryder. Should the meet and confer efforts fail (including efforts to attend mediation), and Ryder fails to provide adequate evidence that its security checks are limited to certain locations, Plaintiff will schedule an informal discovery conference. ii. Kimco’s Responses: With regards to Kimco’s responses, on June 12, 2019, Kimco provided supplemental responses to Plaintiff's first set of discovery requests. Plaintiff has reviewed the supplemental responses and is now in the process of meeting and conferring with Kimco regarding those responses, including engaging in the Belaire West notice process. 4 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. Page Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT1 2 3 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff also anticipates deposing Defendants' Person Most Knowledgeable within the next six months. b. Ryder’s Position: Ryder served its first set of written discovery on Plaintiff encompassing Special Interrogatories (Set One), General Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One). After Plaintiff responded, Ryder and Plaintiff engaged in the meet and confer process related to issues with Plaintiff's responses. Plaintiff has since supplemented his discovery responses. Regarding Ryder’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery, the Parties have met and conferred regarding which locations have security checks. Ryder provided an initial declaration regarding which locations have security checks. Plaintiff did not believe that declaration was sufficient and asked for further declarations from individuals in specified positions. The Parties met and conferred on this issue and Plaintiff provided Ryder with the specific types of individuals and information they believed necessary in the declarations. Ryder provided Plaintiff with supplemental declarations containing all the information requested. Should the Parties not proceed to mediation, Ryder believes that the Parties still need to substantively meet and confer regarding the actual discovery responses as to date the meet and confer efforts have focused on the security check issue noted above. Ryder noticed Plaintiff's deposition for April 24, 2019, but Plaintiff objected and did not appear stating only that he was unavailable for deposition. Prior to noticing Plaintiff's deposition, Ryder had requested dates from Plaintiff multiple times and had not received any response. If the Parties are not proceeding to mediation, Ryder requests that the Court order Plaintiff to provide dates for his deposition. Ryder should be permitted to take Plaintiffs deposition prior to any PMK deposition. 5 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. ei Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENTeB W DN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. Kimco’s Position: On March 19, 2019, prior to the reassignment of the 17cv313651 matter, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference before Judge Walsh in the Lacy v. Philips matter (17cv313651). Although the IDC pertained to a separate matter, the issues presented were identical to the discovery dispute in this action. In the IDC, Judge Walsh agreed that the definitions employed in Plaintiffs discovery, encompassing all Kimco employees (not only those allegedly jointly employed by Philips and Ryder at Ryder facilities) exceeded the relevant scope of the action as determined by Plaintiff's Complaint and LWDA letter. Kimco is a staffing services agency, which provides employees, on a temporary or temp-to-hire basis, to hundreds of companies all over Southern California. Kimco’s employees are assigned to work at customer-operated facilities, ranging from individuals employed in large warehouses, to administrative/clerical individuals employed in corporate offices, and are therefore subject to hundreds of different security protocols put in place by the various facilities’ operators. As these facilities are not operated by Kimco, Kimco cannot have standard procedures relating to security protocols or control over the security procedures. Judge Walsh proposed that the discovery be limited to Kimco employees employed at Ryder facilities following a Belaire-West Notice procedure. Ryder’s counsel interjected, stating that no other Ryder facilities were relevant other than the two facilities at issue in the now-related cases and that Ryder had provided evidence to Plaintiff on that point. Judge Walsh left that issue for the parties to work out. Judge Walsh also agreed that the stay of discovery had only been lifted as to Plaintiffs individual claim and class certification issues, and that PAGA discovery could not be used as a back-door to obtain discovery still unavailable in the related class actions. Following the IDC, the parties continued to meet and confer, with Ryder asserting it could prove that no other Ryder facility was relevant to the lawsuit and therefore to discovery. The parties agreed that if Plaintiff could be satisfied as to other Ryder locations, Kimco’s discovery would be properly limited to the Ryder locations identified in the respective complaints. The parties further agreed to mutual extensions of Plaintiff's motion to compel deadline. Based on this Page 6 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., et al. | JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENTe@ 8 BM GA we me YW NM 10 12 12 13 14 19 16 a? 18 19 ||. DATED: Anguat 9, 2019 REED SMITH LLP ai | 22 23 24 25 | 26 understanding, Plafdtiff' and Kimeo canceled their IDC scheduled with Judge Kubnle in the Lacy v. Harman matier (T7ev3 10734). Kino remains wilfing to abide by the agreement, reached at the IDC. and has been waiting to- hear regarding the resolution of the issue betwen Ryder and Plaintiff, but Plaintiff has apparently changed his position since the consolidation of the cases. i. ABR The’ Parties have agreed to. private mediation to facilitate settlement on a class-wide basis cat locations with security checks. If the dai i not resolved, Plaintiff reserves the right to conduct discovery on behalf of‘all non-exempt California employees as plead in the Complaint. IV, SCHEDULING ‘Tho Parties ask tlie Court to continue the case management conference for sixty (60) days by which time’ the Parties hope to have agreed upoti a private mediator. ee Huser for Defendant RYDER TED LOGISTICS, INC. 2S 2 wr 7 A a Rt i cb een A, ARS11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: August 9, 2019 CALL & JENSEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mt. Ora Mark L. Eisenhut Ellen Cohen Attomeys for Defendant KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC. Page 8 Lacy v. Philips North America, LLC, et al. s Lacy v. Harman International Industries, Inc., etal. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT