Judge Elaine Lu, Case Number: 25STCV01637, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 25STCV01637, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01637 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

Alejandro Calderon Puga vs AMSCO U.S., Inc.

25STCV01637

[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. The Parties’ Joint Initial Status Conference Class Action Response Statement indicates that Plaintiff is currently meeting and conferring with Defendant HALE regarding Defendant HALE's dismissal from the case. It is Plaintiff's understanding that Defendant is a Professional Employer Organization (PEO) with limited administrative functions. Additionally, it is Plaintiff's understanding based on discussions with Defendant HALE that Defendant HALE's role as a PEO does not affect the claims at issue in this case in any meaningful way. Plaintiff expects to dismiss Defendant Hale without prejudice upon receipt of information or documentation confirming

Defendant HALE's representations to Plaintiff.

2. Defendant AMSCO INC. states that Plaintiff has signed an arbitration agreement and has produced the arbitration agreement to Plaintiff.

3. The Parties are ordered to meet and confer to explore the possibility of private mediation after litigation of Defendants’ anticipated motion to compel arbitration. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report Re: Mediation Efforts, including whether the Parties have agreed to mediate, the identity of any mediator they may have selected, and the date of any mediation they may have scheduled, no later than October 28, 2025. A Non-Appearance Case Review Re Mediation Efforts is set for November 4, 2025 at 8:30 AM, Department 9.

4. The Court hereby lifts the stay to permit Defendants to file and serve a Motion to Compel Arbitration or a Responsive Pleading to the Complaint. Defendants that have not been dismissed from the action must file and serve a Motion to Compel Arbitration or a Responsive Pleading by no later than May 28, 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 Defendants’ Responsive Pleading for June 4, 2025, 8:30 AM, Department 9. The Court requests that the Motion(s) to Compel Arbitration or Responsive Pleading(s) make clear which Defendant(s) is filing each document. It is somewhat unclear on behalf of which Defendants the Parties’ Joint Initial Status Conference Class Action Response Statement is filed; Defendant AMSCO U.S., Inc. is excluded from the caption but included in references throughout the Joint Statement.

5. Phased Discovery. Discovery shall be phased. 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.

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. 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.

10. 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.

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 (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

Website by Triangulus