Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 25STCV01622, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCV01622 Hearing Date: April 28, 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 the commencement of the April 28, 2025 ISC, the Court
will adopt the tentative CMO, and the parties need not appear. However, if there is any matter not addressed
in the CMO that any party would like to discuss, that party should not submit
on this tentative but instead appear at the ISC to raise the issue.
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Joan
Tu vs Coach Services, Inc.
25STCV01622
[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.
Prior
to the commencement of the Initial Status Conference today, the Court made the following disclosure: The Court (Judge Elaine Lu) has been
acquainted with Plaintiff’s Counsel, Thomas D. Warren since 1997, when Judge Lu
began to work at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District
of California as an Assistant United States Attorney. Mr. Warren was already working at the U.S.
Attorney’s Office at the time. Mr.
Warren was a well-respected colleague.
Mr. Warren left the U.S. Attorney’s Office before Judge Lu left in 2007
upon her appointment to the bench. Judge Lu has not kept in touch with Mr.
Warren since their overlap at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The Court makes this disclosure so that all
parties are aware of all facts reasonably related to the issue of disqualification. The Court has no basis to recuse itself. The Court can remain fair and impartial to
all parties. Upon making this disclosure,
the Court advised that any party that desires to do so may request a
continuance to serve a timely statement of disqualification against Judge Lu
based on this disclosure. Having been so
advised, Counsel for all parties stated that waive any right to serve such a
statement of disqualification, and all parties elected to proceed with the ISC today.
2.
The
Parties’ Joint ISC Statement indicates that Plaintiff intends to amend the
complaint, and subsequently, Defendant intends to file either a demurrer or a
motion to compel arbitration.
3.
The
Parties indicate that mediation will not be fruitful at this juncture.
4.
The
Court hereby lifts the stay to permit Plaintiff to file and serve an amended
complaint. Plaintiff must file and serve an amended
complaint by no later than May 28, 2025.
Plaintiff’s failure to file and serve an amended complaint by May 28,
2025 will mean that the original complaint will be the operative complaint.
5.
The
Court hereby lifts the stay to permit Defendant to file and serve a Motion to
Compel Arbitration or a Responsive Pleading to the operative complaint (whether
the original complaint or the amended complaint). Defendant must file and serve
a Motion to Compel Arbitration or a Responsive Pleading by no later than July
7, 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 July 14, 2025,
8:30 AM, Department 9.
6.
Phased Discovery. Discovery shall be
phased. Upon the filing of any motion to
compel arbitration, the stay shall be lifted, and the parties will be permitted
to conduct discovery on the arbitration issue only. Once an answer is filed and served or, if
applicable, after the Court rules on the motion to compel arbitration or
pleading challenge, 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 arbitration based, or certification or
merits-based, the parties are to set up a telephonic conference with the court
pursuant to the instructions herein.
7.
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.
8.
E-service & E-filing. Electronic service is not the same as
electronic filing. The parties have
agreed, and the Court has signed an order authorizing Case Anywhere as the
e-service to be used in this case.
Argument must not be posted on the bulletin board. For information on electronic filing in the
Complex Courts, please refer to https://www.lacourt.org/division/efiling/efiling2.aspx and http://www.lacourt.org/division/efiling/pdf/ComplexefilingFAQs.pdf.
9.
Class Certification Motion. The Court will set a deadline for filing and
serving the Class Certification Motion after ruling on the anticipated Motion
to Compel Arbitration. If no party files
a Motion to Compel Arbitration, then upon the filing of all Defendants’
responsive pleadings, the Court will set a deadline for filing and serving the
Class Certification Motion that will be approximately one year from the filing
of all Defendants’ responsive pleadings.
10.
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.
11.
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. In particular, the Parties’
Joint ISC statement has identified one other pending case with an overlapping
class definition: Cruz v. Tapestry, Inc., Case No. 24STCV09276 (L.A.
Super. Ct.). The Court hereby lifts the
stay to permit Plaintiff to file and serve all parties in both actions with a
Notice of Related Cases by no later than May 28, 2025. The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case
Review Re: Filing and Serving of Notice of Related Cases for June 4, 2025, 8:30
AM, Department 9.
12.
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 (1) the instant signed order from the Court’s
website, (2) the minute order for today, and (3) the signed order authorizing
electronic service provider, to give formal notice of each of these to all
other parties, and to file proof of service of such within five (5) days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 28, 2025
__________________________
ELAINE
LU
Judge
of the Superior Court