Superior Court of the State of California s3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Coordination Proceedings Special Title (Rule 3.550)
LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES WAGE AND HOUR CASES,
Included Actions:
Macias v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Toledo v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc.,
/ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)_
) / JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING No. 4750
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE
No. RIC120510
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
No. 1265755
COMPLEX CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
ASSIGNED JUDGE: Hon. Donna D. Geck
DEPARTMENT: Four
HEARING DATE: May 30, 2014
TIME: 1:30 pm

On August 20, 2008 the Court designated this matter as complex litigation under the California Standards of Judicial Administration. On March 13, 2013, Macias v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. et. al., Superior Court of California, Riverside, Case No. RIC 1210510, and Toledo v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, Case No. 1265755, were coordinated by this Court and designated as complex litigation under the California Standards of Judicial Administration.

The purpose of this order is to establish a case management plan for this complex litigation in order to avoid inconsistent or duplicative rulings, reduce the costs of litigation, assist the parties in resolving their disputes and reduce the costs and difficulties of discovery and trial. This complex case management order supersedes all prior complex case management orders in this case.

On any matter about which this order is silent, the Code of Civil Procedure, other statutes, the California Rules of Court, and the local rules of this Court shall be controlling.

On May 30, 2014, a complex case management conference was conducted in this matter. An unofficial copy of this Order may be posted on the Court’s web page at http://www.sbcourts.org/general_info/judicial_officers/dgeck/ as a convenience to Court and counsel, but the filed order entered by the Court is the only operative order. The parties stipulate and agree that the e-mail by the Court to the e-mail address provided by counsel is equivalent to service as of the date of the e-mail and further notice of this Order is waived.

The Court considered at the conference, pursuant to Appendix to California Rules of Court, Div I, section 19(e) (Initial Case Management Conference, Complex Litigation), and Rule 212(i) of the California Rules of Court (Case Management Conference, Generally), the following subjects, and makes the following orders:

1.  SEVERANCE, CONSOLIDATION OR COORDINATION (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(2))

2.  STATUS OF THE PARTIES AND PLEADINGS

2.1.  Current Status

On October 19, 2013, the Court granted in part Defendant’s Motion for Decertification in the Toledo matter. Currently Plaintiffs’ expense reimbursement claims, specifically claims by Managers for mileage reimbursement and claims by all non-exempt employees for uniform reimbursement, and unfair competition claims are certified for class treatment. Plaintiffs’ meal and rest period, wage statement, and waiting time penalty claims are not certified and are brought by Plaintiffs in their individual capacity only.

Defendant filed a demurrer regarding Plaintiff Jonathan Macias’ First Amended Complaint, to be heard at the July 12, 2013 Complex Case Management Conference. Defendant’s Demurrer was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff Jonathan Macias subsequently filed a Second and Third Amended Complaint. Defendant filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike regarding Plaintiff Jonathan Macias’ Third Amended Complaint which was heard at the December 20, 2031 Complex Case Management Conference at which time the Court granted Plaintiff Macias leave to amend. Defendant also has served a Section 128.7 motion which it withdrew. On January 6, 2014 Plaintiff Macias filed his Fourth Amended Complaint, in response to which Defendant filed a motion to strike. At the hearing on Defendant’s motion to strike on February 21, 2014, the Court denied Defendant’s motion and ordered Defendant to file, and Defendant did file, an Answer by March 10, 2014.

3.  COUNSEL

3.1.  Master Counsel List

The master list of counsel, their e-mail addresses and the parties is: (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(11)):

NAME / E-MAIL ADDRESS / PARTY
Cesar Nava / / SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, and ROCKY TEI and the Class
Santos Gomez / / Same
Stan Hodson / / Same
Stanley Saltzman / / Same
Marcus Bradley / / Same
Kiley Grombacher / / Same
Maria Rodriguez / / LITTLE CEASAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
Ben Gipson / / LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
Raul Perez / / Jonathan Macias
Alexandria Witte / / Jonathan Macias
Arnab Banerjee / / Jonathan Macias
Melissa Grant / / Jonathan Macias

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

3.2.  Liaison Counsel

3.3.  Liaison Groups

3.4.  Pro Hac Vice Admission of Counsel

3.5.  Trial Counsel

The names and addresses of the attorneys who will try the case are (CRC, Rule 212(i)(9)):

COUNSEL / E-MAIL ADDRESS / PARTY
Cesar Nava / / SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, and ROCKY TEI and the Class
Santos Gomez / / Same
Stan Hodson / / Same
Stanley Saltzman / / Same
Marcus Bradley / / Same
Maria Rodriguez / / Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc
Ben Gipson / / Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc
Raul Perez / / Jonathan Macias
Alexandria Witte / / Jonathan Macias
Arnab Banerjee / / Jonathan Macias
Melissa Grant / / Jonathan Macias

4.  MOTIONS

4.1.  Preliminary Legal Question Schedule

4.2  Class Certification Motion

04-13-10 Motion Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Approving Plaintiffs Notice of Pending Certified Class Action With Supporting Declaration of Stanley J Hodson Hrg 5/05/10 3:00pm Dept 4, Filed by Plaintiffs
09-15-10 Notice of Hearing on Plaintiffs April 13 2010 Filed Motion for an Order Approving Plaintiffs Notice of Pending Certified Class Action With Supporting Declaration of Stanley J Hodson Hrg 10/13/10 9:30am Dept 4, Filed by Plaintiffs
Moving Parties / Responding Party
Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI / LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
Responding Party / Hearing / Submitted / Disposition
LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC. / 12/15/2010 / The court grants, in part, the motion of plaintiffs Susana Toledo, Oscar Morales and Rocky Tei to approve their proposed notice of pending certified class action and orders as follows:
Notice to class members is necessary.
The class members may exclude themselves from the class.
The class members shall be notified by first class mail.
The content of the notice attached to the motion as Exhibit “F” is approved with the following changes:
In ¶ 7 of the notice, plaintiffs shall add: “If you remain a member of the class, you may enter an appearance in the action through counsel.”
In ¶ 8, the date selected shall be 60 days from the transmission date of the Notice.
Plaintiffs shall bear the cost of notifying the class. However, defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. shall bear the cost of gathering and distributing a class list of current and former managers and non-managerial employees, dividing them into subclasses and providing their last known contact information.
Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. may not urge, either explicitly or implicitly, any class member, whether a former or current employee, to opt-out from participating in this Class Action.
The court approves Simpluris, Inc. as class administrator.
The court intends to add an order regarding the timing of the notice to class members. The parties shall appear at the December 15, 2010 hearing to discuss the timing of the notice.

4.2  Class De-Certification Motion

06-27-12 filed Motion: Defendant’s Notice and Motion for Decertification with Supporting Declarations of Benjamin M. Gipson and Sonya Kwon, Compendium of Evidence, Request for Judicial Notice, Non-California Authorities, and Proposed Order Hrg 8/15/12 1:30pm Dept 4.
07-18-12 Filed Opposition: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Decertification, with supporting Declarations of Stanley J. Hodson and Marcus J. Bradley, and Request for Judicial Notice.
08-01-12 Defendant’s Reply in support of its Motion for Decertification.
08-01-12 Supplemental Declaration of Benjamin M. Gipson in support of Defendant’s Reply.
08-01-12 Defendant’s Appendix of Non-California Authorities in support of Defendant’s Reply.
08-01-12 Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice in support of Defendant’s Reply.
08-08-2012 Class Objections to the Evidence and Case Law that Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (1) Supplemental Declaration, (2) Appendix of Non-California Authorities, and (3) Request for Judicial Notice untimely and improperly submitted with the Reply in support of Defendant’s Decertification Motion.
08-23-12 Defendant’s Notice of New Superior Court Decisions Decertifying Meal and Rest Period Class Action.
08-23-12 Declaration of Benjamin M. Gipson in Support of Defendant’s Notice of New Superior Court Decisions Decertifying Meal and Rest Period Class Action.
08-24-12 Class Objections to Defendant’s August 23, 2012 Untimely Filed and Improperly Submitted Notice of New Superior Court Decisions Decertifying Meal and Rest Period Class Action.
09-28-12 Defendant’s Notice of New California Appellate Court Decisions Upholding Denials of Meal and Rest Period Class Actions after Brinker.
10-05-12 Class Objections to Defendant’s September 28, 2012 Untimely Filed Briefing.
Moving Parties / Responding Party
LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC. / Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI, and the Class
Responding Party / Hearing / Submitted / Disposition
Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI, and the Class / 08/15/2012
Continued by minute order to 8/29/2012
Continued by Court minute order to 10/10/2012
Continued by Court minute order to 10/17/2012 / The Court granted in part, defendant Little Caesar Industries, Inc.’s motion for decertification of this class action. The Court orders that the class of all persons who are employed or have been employed by defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California who within four (4) years of the filing of the complaint herein (January 16, 2008) have worked as hourly restaurant employees, including the sub-class of such hourly restaurant employees with managerial duties, is decertified for purposes of the first, second, third and fourth causes of action in the first amended complaint of plaintiffs Susana Toledo, Oscar Morales and Rocky Tei. The class of all hourly employees remains certified as to the fifth and seventh causes of action, and the sub-class of hourly restaurant employees with managerial duties as to the sixth cause of action.

Plaintiffs filed a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal seeking review of this Court’s October 19, 2012 Order decertifying Plaintiffs’ meal period claim on December 18, 2012. This was denied by the Appellate Court on February 5, 2013.

Defendant anticipates filing a motion for decertification based on new caselaw and evidence as to Plaintiffs’ remaining certified claims if current settlement negotiations are unsuccessful. Should the parties fail to reach a settlement, the Toldeo Plaintiffs intend to move for reconsideration of this Court’s Order decertifying Plaintiffs’ meal break claim in light of the Court of Appeals decision in Faulkinbury vs Boyd & Associates Inc., (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 220, as well as several other recent State Court appellate decisions which have issued orders consistent with that issued in Faulkinbury. The Toledo parties continue to meet and confer regarding a class certification briefing schedule.

On February 19, this Court was assigned as the coordination judge for this matter and Macias v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1210510. Both parties in the Macias matter sought coordination, and Defendant requests that the cases be coordinated before this Court. Plaintiffs do not oppose coordination provided that the matter remains venued in this Court. This matter was coordinated and deemed complex on March 13, 2013.

4.3.  Demurrers, Motions to Strike and Summary Adjudication Motions (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(7))

Motion: Summary Judgment as to Representative Plaintiff SUSANA TOLEDO
Moving Party / Responding Parties
LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC. / SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, & ROCKY TEI
Responding Parties / Hearing / Submitted / Disposition
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI / 4/28/2010
9:30 a.m. Civil law & motion calendar / The Court denied this motion. The Court sustained Little Caesar Enterprise, Inc.’s objections to ¶¶ 14, 20 & 24 in the Toledo declaration.
Motion: Summary Judgment as to Representative Plaintiff OSCAR MORALES
Moving Party / Responding Parties
LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC. / SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI
Responding Parties / Hearing / Submitted / Disposition
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI / 4/28/2010
9:30 a.m. Civil law & motion calendar / The Court denied this motion. The Court sustained Little Caesar Enterprise, Inc.’s objections to ¶¶ 14, 20 & 23 in the Morales declaration.
Motion: Summary Judgment as to Representative Plaintiff ROCKY TEI
Moving Party / Responding Parties
LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC. / SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI
Responding Parties / Hearing / Submitted / Disposition
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI / 4/28/2010
9:30 a.m. Civil law & motion calendar / The Court denied this motion. The Court sustained Little Caesar Enterprise, Inc.’s objections to ¶¶ 14, 20 & 24 in the Tei declaration.
Moving Party / Responding Parties
LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC. / SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI, and the Class
Responding Parties / Hearing / Submitted / Disposition
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI, and the Class / 08/15/2012
Continued by minute order to 8/29/2012
Continued by Court minute order to 10/10/2012
Continued by Court minute order to 10/17/2012 / The Court denied defendant Little Caesar Industries, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication.
Motion: Demurrer as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS
Moving Party / Responding Parties
LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC. / JONATHAN MACIAS
Responding Parties / Hearing / Submitted / Disposition
JONATHAN MACIAS / July 12, 2013
1:30 p.m. Complex Case Management Conference / The Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiff Macias shall file and serve his SAC on or before 7/29/13.
Motion: Demurrer as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Moving Party / Responding Parties
LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC. / JONATHAN MACIAS
Responding Parties / Hearing / Submitted / Disposition
JONATHAN MACIAS / Taken Off Calendar / Demurrer taken off calendar when Plaintiff agreed to amend Second Amended Complaint.
Motion: Demurrer as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Moving Party / Responding Parties
LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC. / JONATHAN MACIAS
Responding Parties / Hearing / Submitted / Disposition
JONATHAN MACIAS / December 20, 2013
1:30 p.m. Complex Case Management Conference / The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. The Fourth Amended Complaint shall be served and filed 1/6/2014. The Motion to Strike is deemed as moot. Defendants to file a responsive pleading within sixteen (16) days thereafter.
Motion: Motion to Strike as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Moving Party / Responding Parties
LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC. / JONATHAN MACIAS
Responding Parties / Hearing / Submitted / Disposition
JONATHAN MACIAS / February 21, 2014
1:30 p.m. Complex Case Management Conference / The motion to strike as to the Fourth Amended Complaint was denied. Defendant filed and served an Answer on March 10, 2014.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding pre-trial planning and motion practice prior to the next case management conference and be prepared to address these issues at the next case management conference.