Preview
1 Marlene S. Muraco, Esq., Bar No. 154240
mmuraco@littler.com Electronically Filed
2 Angela Meakin, Esq., Bar No. 297169 12/17/2020 9:56 PM
ameakin@littler.com Superior Court of California
3 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. County of Stanislaus
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor Clerk of the Court
4 San Jose, CA 95113.2303
Telephone: 408.998.4150 By: Kimberly Mean, Deputy
5 Fax No.: 408.288.5686
6 Attorneys for Defendants
BUTLER ANIMAL HEALTH SUPPLY, LLC
7 HENRY SCHEIN, INC.
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
LEO MARSHALL, individually, and on Case No.: CV-19-000338
11 behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated;
12
Plaintiff, SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
13 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN
v. SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HENRY
14 SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR
BUTLER ANIMAL HEALTH SUPPLY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT
15 LLC, an unknown business entity; HENRY
SCHEIN ANIMAL HEALTH, an unknown
16 business entity; HENRY SCHEIN, INC., Date: March 4, 2021
an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 Time: 8:30 a.m.
17 through 100, inclusive, Dept.: 24
18 Defendants. Complaint Filed: January 18, 2019
Jury Trial Date: None Set
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
Case No.: CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 Defendant Henry Schein, Inc. ("Defendant") respectfully submits the following Separate
2 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and supporting evidence in support of its motion for
3 summary judgment, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b) and Rule of
4 Court 3.1350(d). The facts contain every essential element to entitle Defendant to judgment as a
5 matter of law.
6 ISSUE ONE: Defendant is entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s claims because it was not
7 Plaintiff’s employer under the California Labor Code.
8
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
9 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
10 1. In 1995, Plaintiff was hired by The Butler Company, a
distributor of veterinary products.
11
Declaration of Tracie Walter (“Walter Decl.”), ¶ 14.
12
2. In July 2005, The Butler Company was merged with Burns
13 Veterinary Supply, Inc. to create Defendant Butler Animal
14 Health Supply, LLC (“BAHS”), which was in the business
of selling and distributing pharmaceuticals, supplies,
15 equipment, and specialized pet foods to veterinary
professionals nationwide. At that time, Plaintiff accepted
16 an offer of continued employment with BAHS as an Inside
Sales Representative (“ISR”), a position he held
17
continuously until his employment was terminated in
18 November 2017.
19 Walter Decl., ¶¶ 3, 14, and Exhibit C thereto; Declaration
of Linda Sorensen (“Sorensen Decl.”), ¶¶ 1, 3.
20
3. In or about January 2010, Henry Schein, Inc. (“HSI”)
21 acquired a 50.1% ownership interest in the holding
company that owned BAHS (the “2010 Transaction”).
22 Following this transaction, BAHS began doing business as
Butler Schein Animal Health. In 2013, BAHS changed its
23
dba to Henry Schein Animal Health.
24
Deposition of Lorelei McGlynn (“McGlynn Depo.”), p.
25 39:9-19, 41:14-42:11, 48:22-49:7 55:2-21, and Exhibit 4
thereto; Walter Decl., ¶¶ 1, 14, and Exhibit D thereto.
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
2. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
2 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 4. Prior to the 2010 Transaction, BAHS had many hundreds
of employees, its own Human Resources Department,
4 employee handbook, employment practices and
5 procedures, compensation system and benefit plans.
6 Walter Decl., ¶ 4.
7 5. Following the 2010 Transaction, Plaintiff remained in his
same job with the same compensation plan and benefits,
8 reporting to the same manager.
9
Walter Decl., ¶¶ 4, 15, and Exhibit E thereto; Sorensen
10 Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.
11 6. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, BAHS and HSI
maintained separate payroll systems and staff, separate
12 human resources staff, different benefit plans, different
corporate headquarters (New York vs. Ohio), separate
13
timekeeping systems, and separate IT systems.
14
Declaration of Lorelei McGlynn (“McGlynn Decl.”), ¶ 3;
15 McGlynn Depo., p. 63:7-9, 66:3-16, 68:15-22; Wallace
Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.
16
7. HSI maintains some payroll, human resources and other
17 policies with which it expects its subsidiaries to comply in
18 substance. In 2010, BAHS was provided with copies of
those HSI policies (the “Key Policies”) and asked to
19 confirm whether the company’s existing policies on the
stated topics were in compliance with the related HSI
20 policies. If so, no revision to the existing BAHS policy
was needed. If not, BAHS was to explain why its policy
21 was not in compliance with HSI’s and explain any
22 business reason for the difference. If HSI agreed the
substantive difference was for a valid business reason, no
23 change was required to BAHS’ existing policy.
24 McGlynn Depo., p. 113:21-114:13, 124:9-126:7, 128:3-
129:21; Walter Decl., ¶ 6.
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
3. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
2 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 8. As to the HR policies that HSI forwarded to BAHS in
2010, BAHS determined and advised HSI that its (BAHS’)
4 pre-existing policies (those in effect prior to the 2010
5 Transaction) were substantively consistent with the HSI
policies. Accordingly, BAHS was not required to revise
6 those policies.
7 Walter Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 8; McGlynn Depo., p. 146:9-147:11,
and Exhibit 20 thereto.
8
9. HSI would sometimes send BAHS’ Vice-President of
9
Human Resources revisions HSI had made to its own
10 personnel policies and/or new policies it had implemented.
The Vice-President would then forward the policy to a
11 member of her HR team with a request that the recipient(s)
review and assess the new policy. If BAHS already had a
12 policy on the topic that made the same general points as
13 the HSI policy, BAHS would let HSI know and would not
revise the BAHS policy. When BAHS did not have a
14 policy on the topic, it would adopt the HSI policy “as is,”
modify its form or content to fit BAHS’ workplace/culture,
15 or write its own policy on the topic in a way that addressed
the substantive points in the HSI policy.
16
17 Walter Decl., ¶ 7; McGlynn Depo., p. 128:3-130:16.
18 10. BAHS did not need to obtain HSI’s approval to implement
policies on topics not addressed by the specified HSI
19 policies.
20 McGlynn Depo., p. 100:12-25, 101:20-24, 145:5-17,
145:5-146:8.
21
22 11. The BAHS Employee Handbook that was in effect prior to
the 2010 Transaction was revised in early 2010 to reflect
23 the company’s new dba, stating it applied to employees of
“Butler Animal Health Supply, LLC d/b/a/ Butler Schein
24 Animal Health.” Introductory portions of the handbook
were updated to describe the 2010 Transaction, but there
25
were no substantive changes made to the 58 employment
26 policies set forth in the 123-page handbook.
27 Wallace Decl., ¶¶ 5, 15 and Exhibits A and D thereto.
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
4. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
2 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 12. After the 2010 handbook revision, BAHS’ Employee
Handbook was next revised in November 2014 to
4 substantively modify three existing policies and add seven
5 more. The revised Handbook stated it applied to
employees of “Butler Animal Health Supply, LLC dba
6 Henry Schein Animal Health.” There were no further
revisions to the BAHS Handbook during Plaintiff’s
7 employment.
8 Walter Decl., ¶¶ 8-9, 16 and Exhibits B, E and F thereto.
9
13. The BAHS policies regarding “Work
10 Schedule/Breaks/Meals,” “Overtime & Timekeeping” and
“Your Compensation” did not change between the date of
11 the 2010 Transaction and Plaintiff’s termination.
12 Walter Decl., ¶ 10.
13
14. In January 2009, Plaintiff signed a Telecommuting
14 Agreement that addressed the times he was expected to
work and the number and timing of his meal and rest
15 breaks. The policies set forth in that Agreement did not
change during the duration of Plaintiff’s employment.
16
Walters Decl., ¶ 10, and Exhibit C thereto; Sorensen Decl.,
17
¶ 3.
18
15. BAHS developed and provided training to its employees
19 on the company’s wage and hour policies without any
involvement by HSI.
20
Walters Decl., ¶ 10.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
5. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
2 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 16. Both before and after the 2010 Transaction, Plaintiff’s
manager (a BAHS employee), was responsible for
4 overseeing Plaintiff’s day-to-day job performance,
5 preparing and delivering his annual performance
evaluations, setting his annual compensation, and deciding
6 upon and administering any discipline, up to and including
the termination of his employment. Plaintiff’s manager
7 sometimes consulted her manager or BAHS’ Human
Resources personnel about Plaintiff, but those individuals
8 were also employed by BAHS.
9
Walters Decl., ¶¶ 11-12; Sorensen Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, and
10 Exhibits A-C thereto; McGlynn Depo., p. 90:12-91:16,
91:22-93:5, 96:22-24, 98:21-24, 106:21-107:4, 148:5-
11 149:7.
12 17. No employee of HSI ever gave Plaintiff’s manager any
13 suggestion, direction or input of any type about Plaintiff or
any of the other BAHS employees she managed, or had
14 any involvement in any employment decision she made.
15 Sorensen Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, and Exhibits A-C thereto..
16 18. The post-2010 performance evaluations in Plaintiff’s
personnel file all bear the name and/or logo for “Butler
17
Schein Animal Health” or (later) “Henry Schein Animal
18 Health,” both of which were dbas for BSAH.
19 Walter Decl., ¶¶ 1, 17, and Exhibit F thereto
20 19. HSI did not provide Plaintiff with his wages or bonuses,
did not determine his rate of pay, played no role in the
21 review or reimbursement of his work-related expenses, did
22 not determine how he would be classified for purposes of
wage and hour laws, did not review or approve his
23 timecards, did not evaluate or review his performance, did
not have the authority to hire or fire him, and did not
24 determine where or when he worked.
25
Wallace Decl., ¶ 12; McGlynn Decl., ¶¶ 3-5; Sorensen
26 Decl., ¶¶ 4-5; McGlynn Depo., p. 96:22-24.
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
6. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
2 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 20. HSI had no direct access to the time or payroll records of
BAHS employees and was therefore unaware of when
4 Plaintiff was working and/or in what amount he was being
5 compensated.
6 McGlynn Decl., ¶ 4.
7 21. HSI neither maintained personnel file or other employment
records for BAHS employees, nor had any direct access to
8 the records that BAHS maintained.
9
McGlynn Decl., ¶¶ 5-6; Declaration of Stephanie Levine
10 (“Levine Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-6, and Exhibits A and B thereto.
11 22. Between the 2010 Transaction and the date of his
termination, Plaintiff’s wage statements and W-2
12 statements were all issued by BAHS.
13
Walter Decl., ¶ 18, and Exhibits G-H thereto.
14
23. The name “Henry Schein, Inc.” appears just once on
15 Plaintiff’s 300+ page personnel file, on a document
entitled “Notice and Consent to Telephone Monitoring and
16 Recording” (“the Notice”) that is dated May 16, 2016.
17 Walter Decl., ¶ 13.
18
24. The Notice, which was created by someone in HR at HSI,
19 described a program by which HSI would monitor and
record inbound telephone calls “for certain Team Schein
20 Members” that was never implemented as to Plaintiff or
other BAHS employees. HSI never monitored, recorded or
21 reviewed a telephone call made or received by Plaintiff or
any other BAHS employee and, in fact, had no ability to
22
do so.
23
McGlynn Depo., p. 108:11-109:7, 110:10-111:22;
24 Declaration of Ryan Smith (“Smith Decl.”), ¶¶ 4-8, and
Exhibit A thereto; Declaration of Lorena Stufflet (“Stufflet
25 Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-5.
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
7. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 ISSUE TWO: Alternatively, Defendant and Butler Animal Health Systems, LLC were
2 not an integrated enterprise during Plaintiff’s tenure with BAHS.
3
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
4
Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
5
25. In or about January 2010, Henry Schein, Inc. (“HSI”)
6 acquired a 50.1% ownership interest in Butler Animal
Health Holding Company, LLC (the “Holding Company”),
7 the holding company that owned BAHS.
8 McGlynn Depo., p. 39:9-19, 41:14-42:11, 55:2-21, and
Exhibit 4 thereto.
9
26. Following the 2010 Transaction, the Holding Company
10 initially had three officers, none of whom were officers or
employees of HSI. Between May 12, 2011 and Plaintiff’s
11 termination in November 2017, the Holding Company had
five or six officers at any given time, one of whom was an
12 officer of HSI, one of whom was a (non-officer) employee
of HSI and three or four of whom were neither officers nor
13 employees of HSI.
14 McGlynn Decl., ¶ 7; McGlynn Depo., p. 55:2-58:23, 61:2-
12, 61:23-62:8.
15
27. Following the 2010 Transaction, BAHS began doing
16 business as Butler Schein Animal Health. In 2013, BAHS
changed its dba to Henry Schein Animal Health.
17
McGlynn Depo., p. 48:22-49:7; Walter Decl., ¶¶ 1, 14, and
18 Exhibit D thereto
19 HSI and BAHS were headquartered in different states, had
28.
different principal places of business and did not share any
20 corporate departments.
21 McGlynn Depo., p. 41:7-13, 63:7-9, 81:3-16.
22 HSI and BAHS each had its own employees – they did not
29.
share staff, did not borrow employees from each other and
23 neither could assign an employee to work at the other
entity.
24
McGlynn Depo., p. 66:22-68:14, 68:23-69:7, 69:8-18,
25 95:3-8, 95:18-22.
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
8. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
2 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 30. Prior to the 2010 Transaction, BAHS had many hundreds
of employees, its own Human Resources Department,
4 employee handbook, employment practices and
procedures, compensation system and benefit plans.
5
Walter Decl., ¶ 4
6
31. During the period in which HSI had an ownership interest
7 in BAHS, HSI maintained its own human resources staff
and payroll staff, none of whom had responsibility for or
8 authority over BAHS employees. Likewise, BAHS
maintained its own human resources staff and payroll staff,
9 none of whom had responsibility for or authority over HSI
employees.
10
McGlynn Decl., ¶ 3; McGlynn Depo., p. 63:7-9, 66:3-16,
11 68:15-22; Wallace Decl., ¶¶ 11-12. .
12 32. HSI and BAHS had separate IT systems, separate
leadership teams, separate infrastructures, separate bank
13 accounts, separate payroll systems, separate equity
programs, separate commission plans for their salesforces,
14 separate timekeeping systems, different benefit plans,
separate supply chains, different Intranets and different
15 email addresses.
16 McGlynn Decl., ¶¶ 3, 6; McGlynn Depo., p. 54:4-9, 66:3-
16, 68:15-22, 131:13-132:11, 144:14-18; Wallace Decl., ¶¶
17 11-12.
18 33. HSI neither maintained personnel file or other employment
records for BAHS employees, nor had any direct access to
19
the records that BAHS maintained.
20
McGlynn Decl., ¶¶ 5-6; Declaration of Stephanie Levine
21 (“Levine Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-6, and Exhibits A and B thereto.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
9. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
2 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 34. HSI did not participate in the day-to-day administration of
BAHS’ employment practices and procedures. Following
4 the 2010 Transaction, BAHS managers – with input from
5 BAHS’ HR Department – continued to be responsible for
overseeing their subordinates’ performance, preparing and
6 delivering performance evaluations, adjusting employee
compensation, administering discipline and making hire
7 and fire decisions.
8 Wallace Decl., ¶¶ 11-12; Sorensen Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, and
9 Exhibits A-C thereto; Walter Decl., ¶¶ 1, 17, and Exhibit F
thereto; McGlynn Depo., p. 90:12-91:16, 91:22-93:5,
10 96:22-24, 98:21-24, 106:21-107:4, 148:5-149:7.
11 35. HSI did not provide BAHS employees with their wages or
bonuses, did not determine their rate of pay, did not
12 determine how they would be classified for purposes of
13 wage and hour laws, did not review or approve their
timecards, did not provide them with employment benefits,
14 did not direct them when or where to work, did not review
their performance, and did not have the authority to hire or
15 fire them.
16 Wallace Decl., ¶ 12; McGlynn Decl., ¶ 4; McGlynn Depo.,
17 p. 96:22-24.
18 36. HSI maintains some basic payroll, human resources and
other policies with which it expects its subsidiaries to
19 comply in substance. In 2010, BAHS was provided with
copies of those HSI policies and asked to confirm whether
20 the company’s existing policies on the stated topics were
in compliance with the related HSI policies. If so, no
21
revision to the existing BAHS policy was needed. If not,
22 BAHS was to explain why its policy was not in
compliance with HSI’s and explain any business reason for
23 the difference. If HSI agreed the substantive difference
was for a valid business reason, no change was required to
24 BAHS’ existing policy.
25
McGlynn Depo., p. 113:21-114:13, 124:9-126:7, 128:3-
26 129:21; Walter Decl., ¶ 6.
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
10. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
2 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 37. As to the HR policies that HSI forwarded to BAHS in
2010, BAHS determined and advised HSI that its (BAHS’)
4 pre-existing policies (those in effect prior to the 2010
5 Transaction) were substantively consistent with the HSI
policies. Accordingly, BAHS was not required to revise
6 those policies.
7 Walter Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 8; McGlynn Depo., p. 146:9-147:11,
and Exhibit 20 thereto.
8
38. HSI would sometimes send BAHS’ Vice-President of
9
Human Resources revisions HSI had made to its own
10 personnel policies and/or new policies it had implemented.
The Vice-President would then forward the policy to a
11 member of her HR team with a request that the recipient(s)
review and assess the new policy. If BAHS already had a
12 policy on the topic that made the same general points as
13 the HSI policy, BAHS would let HSI know and would not
revise the BAHS policy. When BAHS did not have a
14 policy on the topic, it would adopt the HSI policy “as is,”
modify its form or content to fit BAHS’ workplace/culture,
15 or write its own policy on the topic in a way that addressed
the substantive points in the HSI policy.
16
17 Walter Decl., ¶ 7; McGlynn Depo., p. 128:3-130:16.
18 39. BAHS did not need to obtain HSI’s approval to implement
policies on topics not addressed by the specified HSI
19 policies.
20 McGlynn Depo., p. 100:12-25, 101:20-24, 145:5-17,
145:5-146:8.
21
22 40. The BAHS Employee Handbook that was in effect prior to
the 2010 Transaction was revised in early 2010 to reflect
23 the company’s new dba, stating it applied to employees of
“Butler Animal Health Supply, LLC d/b/a/ Butler Schein
24 Animal Health.” Introductory portions of the handbook
were updated to describe the 2010 Transaction, but there
25
were no substantive changes made to the 58 employment
26 policies set forth in the 123-page handbook.
27 Wallace Decl., ¶¶ 5, 15 and Exhibits A and D thereto.
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
11. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1
Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiff's Response and
2 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 41. After the 2010 handbook revision, BAHS’ Employee
Handbook was next revised in November 2014 to
4 substantively modify three existing policies and add seven
5 more. The revised Handbook stated it applied to
employees of “Butler Animal Health Supply, LLC dba
6 Henry Schein Animal Health.” There were no further
revisions to the BAHS Handbook during Plaintiff’s
7 employment.
8 Walter Decl., ¶¶ 8-9, 16 and Exhibits B, E and F thereto.
9
42. BAHS developed and provided training to its employees
10 on the company’s wage and hour policies without any
involvement by HSI.
11
Walters Decl., ¶ 10.
12
43. Between the 2010 Transaction and the date of his
13
termination, Plaintiff’s wage statements and W-2
14 statements were all issued by BAHS.
15 Walter Decl., ¶ 18, and Exhibits G-H thereto.
16 44. HSI and BAHS had separate telephone systems, and thus
HSI had no ability to monitor, record or review telephone
17 calls made or received by BAHS employees.
18
Smith Decl., ¶¶ 4-8; Stufflet Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.
19
45. In February 2019, BAHS was spun off and merged with
20 Vets First Choice, at which point it began doing business
as Covetrus North America. BAHS has not had an
21 ownership interest in BAHS since that time.
22
McGlynn Decl., ¶ 8.
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
12. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1 Dated: December 16, 2020
2
3 MARLENE S. MURACO
ANGELA MEAKIN
4 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
5 BUTLER ANIMAL HEALTH SUPPLY, LLC
AND HENRY SCHEIN, INC.
6
7 4848-4206-5620.1 052225.1149
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
13. Case No. CV-19-000338
San Jose, CA 95113.2303
408.998.4150
SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO HENRY SCHEIN, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT