Judge Elaine Lu, Case Number: 24STCV26520, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 24STCV26520, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26520 Hearing Date: April 11, 2025 Dept: 9

The Court hereby distributes a tentative ruling for the Case Management Order. The parties are welcome to provide input and propose modification(s) to any aspect of the CMO at the Initial Status Conference. If all parties submit on the tentative CMO prior to 4:30 pm on April 10, 2025, the Court will adopt the tentative CMO, and the parties need not appear for the April 11, 2025 ISC. If any party does not affirmatively submit on the tentative CMO prior to 4:30 pm on April 10, 2025, then the ISC will be continued to April 14, 2025 at 10 am.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Terrance Burt vs Ranger Global Security, Inc., et al,

24STCV26520

[TENTATIVE] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

This action has been designated as complex pursuant to CRC 3.400(a), and thus requires exceptional judicial management. All provisions of this CMO are deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of Rule 3.400(a), and to promote effective decision-making by the Court. They are based upon individual consideration of this complex action, including the Status Conference Reports previously filed by the parties.

1. On 3/10/25, the parties file a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Defendant Nadia Sultani without prejudice. The Court requests that Plaintiff file and serve a proposed order of dismissal as well as a declaration affirming whether any compensation has been received in exchange for such dismissal and whether putative class members are likely to have ever received notice of the pendency of the instant class action, in compliance with California Rules of Court Rule 3.770. Plaintiff is ordered to file such declaration by no later than August 22, 2025. A Non-Appearance Case Review is set for August 29, 2025 at 8:30 am.

2. The Parties are unaware of any relevant arbitration agreements and/or class action waiver clauses.

3. The Parties indicate that they have scheduled a private mediation to occur on July 22, 2025. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report Re: Mediation Efforts by no later than August 22, 2025. A Non-Appearance Case Review re mediation efforts is set for August 29, 2025 at 8:30 AM, Department 9. If the parties agree to a voluntary, informal exchange of discovery prior to mediating, the Court encourages (but does not require or order) the parties to include a verification with each production of discovery so that if the mediation is unsuccessful, the parties will not have to duplicate or repeat this exchange of discovery.

4. The Court hereby lifts the stay to permit Defendant to file and serve a Responsive Pleading to the Complaint. Defendant must file and serve a Responsive Pleading by no later than August 22, 2025. Before filing any demurrer or other motion, the moving party must contact the Court Staff in Department 9 to obtain a hearing date and a briefing schedule. The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Filing and Serving of Defendant’s Responsive Pleading for August 29, 2025, 8:30 AM, Department 9.

5. Phased Discovery. Discovery shall be phased. Discovery will be phased with the stay lifted once Defendant files and serves an answer or, if applicable, after the Court rules on any pleading challenge. At that time, the Court will permit class certification discovery only. Informal discovery is permitted. Merits-based discovery will be allowed after a successful class certification motion. If there is a dispute concerning whether a given discovery request is certification or merits-based, the parties are to set up a telephonic conference with the court pursuant to the instructions herein.

6. Class list discovery. The decision in In Re Insurance Installment Fee cases (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1426-1429, held that the notice procedure prescribed by the trial court and followed by the defendant was necessary to protect privacy rights under the California Constitution. Therefore, upon the Court’s lifting of the stay on class certification discovery, the parties shall use the procedure described in Belaire-West Landscape v Superior Court (2008) 149 Cal.App.4th 554 to notify putative class members, as described in the applicable paragraph of the currently operative complaint, giving them the opportunity to opt out. The parties must share the cost of the procedure equally.

a. Plaintiff is to take the lead and prepare a proposed letter to be sent out by the agreed-upon third party administrator. The parties must discuss and settle upon a final version.

b. The letter must be written using the administrator’s letterhead, not that of any party.

c. The defense must turn over the contact information consisting of name, address, phone number, and email address (if available) to the third-party administrator.

d. In the event the putative class list is greater than 400 people, the administrator must randomly select a sample of no more than 400. The contact information for those persons who did not opt out must be turned over to the plaintiff.

7. Payroll Records Discovery. Responses to any payroll record discovery requests must be uniquely numbered and redacted so that putative class member’s identifying information, i.e., name, social security numbers, etc. are not revealed.

8. Protective Order. Parties are alerted that model protective orders may be found at Los Angeles Superior Court website at http://www.lacourt.org/division/civil/CI0043.aspx. The parties are encouraged to use these model orders as shown, or if modified, as a template for the modified order. A redlined courtesy copy must be posted on the e-service bulletin board and lodged with the court at the time of filing. The parties must use the redlined version to identify any changes proposed to the model order.

9. E-service & E-filing. The Joint Statement reflects that not all parties will stipulate to an order authorizing Case Anywhere as the e-service to be used in this case. The parties do not have to select Case Anywhere as their electronic service provider. There are at least two other third-party cloud providers that have been approved for the Complex Courts of the L.A. Superior Court: File & Serve Xpress (https://secure.fileandservexpress.com) and Legal Document Server (LDS). The parties are welcome to select one of these other two alternative third-party cloud providers. Please agree on one of the approved electronic service providers and submit the parties’ choice in a joint stipulation and proposed order to be filed by no later than August 22, 2025. The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Electronic Service Provider for August 29, 2025, 8:30 AM, Department 9. Electronic service is not the same as electronic filing. Pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court, rule 3.4(a), represented litigants are required to electronically file documents with the Court through an approved Electronic Filing Service Provider. For information on electronic filing in the Complex Courts, please refer to http://www.lacourt.org/division/efiling/pdf/ComplexefilingFAQs.pdf.

10. Class Certification Motion. Class Certification Motion filing and serving deadline is July 22, 2026. The plaintiff is reminded that the plaintiff’s brief must contain a trial plan. The trial plan MUST be filed as a separate brief. As with all other motions, Counsel must call the Court to obtain a hearing date and briefing schedule PRIOR to filing and serving the motion for Class Certification. The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case Review for July 29, 2026, 8:30 AM, Department 9.

11. Telephonic conferences. The Court handles discovery motions informally, using telephonic conferences and LA CourtConnect. Counsel must post a message via their Electronic Service Provider to request any informal discovery conference or other conference. The Court will either reply to the message or issue a Minute Order setting the conference. The telephonic conference will automatically be taken off calendar if all relevant parties have not scheduled the telephonic conference with LA CourtConnect. Parties must file and serve a 5-page joint brief two days before the conference. Since these conferences are informal, no court reporter or audio recording is permitted.

12. Potential Related Cases. Counsel are ordered to file and serve a Notice of Related Case for any potentially related cases pursuant California Rule of court Rule 3.300, including any PAGA case involving the same representative plaintiff. This is a continuing obligation on both plaintiffs and defendants while this case is pending.

13. Settlement. File a Notice of Settlement on Judicial Council form CM-200, a mandatory form.

a. Consider using the form wage and hour settlement agreements now available on the court’s website at https://www.lacourt.org/forms/all – “Civil Forms” section. With input and unanimous consensus from an Ad Hoc Wage and Hour Committee, the court posted: (1) a form class action settlement agreement, (2) a form class action/PAGA settlement agreement, (3) and a form PAGA settlement agreement. Using these forms should cut down on attorney negotiation time and reduce the lag time between a successful mediation and execution of a long form agreement. Filing a motion that is based on a form agreement and includes a redlined copy identifying modifications will also expedite the court’s review process and help reduce the current backlog on hearings.

b. If settlement includes dismissal of class action claims (such as a PAGA only settlement or an individual settlement), then Plaintiff must comply with CRC 3.769 and 3.770 in order to obtain dismissal of class claims. Do NOT use Judicial Council Form Civ-110, Request for Dismissal.

Plaintiff is ordered to download the instant signed order from the Court’s website, to give formal notice to all other parties, and to file proof of service of such within five (5) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2025

__________________________

ELAINE LU

Judge of the Superior Court