Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 25STCV07247, Date: 2025-06-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCV07247 Hearing Date: June 9, 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 June 9, 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
SONIA
YANET DE LA BARRA vs DAY-LEE FOODS INC.
25STCV07247
[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 indicate that they are planning to attend early mediation but have not
provided a date of any scheduled mediation.
The parties are further 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, by no later than August 21, 2025. A Non-Appearance Case Review Re Mediation Efforts
is set for August 28, 2025 at 8:30 AM, Department 9.
2.
Plaintiff
is unaware of any relevant arbitration agreements and/or class action waiver
clauses. Defendant contends that any
issue which requires interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement must
be resolved through the collective bargaining agreements’ grievance and
arbitration processes.
3.
The
operative complaint currently does not include any claim for civil penalties
pursuant to Labor Code section 2699 (PAGA penalties). Plaintiff’s Counsel states in court today
that Plaintiff does intend to file an amended complaint in the instant action
adding a claim for PAGA penalties. The Court
hereby lifts the stay to permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint adding a
claim for PAGA penalties. Plaintiff must
file and serve an amended complaint adding a claim for PAGA penalties and file
proof of service of such by no later than July 7, 2025. If Plaintiff fails to file and serve an amended
complaint by July 7, 2025, then the original complaint shall be the
operative complaint.
4.
The
Court hereby lifts the stay to permit Defendant to file and serve a Motion to
Compel Arbitration or a Responsive Pleading to the Complaint. Defendant must
file and serve a Motion to Compel Arbitration or a Responsive Pleading by no
later than August 21, 2025. Before
filing any 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 28, 2025,
8:30 AM, Department 9. If due to
a scheduled mediation the parties wish to extend the deadline for Defendant to
file its responsive pleading, then the parties may file a stipulation and
proposed order extending the deadline for Defendant to file its responsive
pleading to a date after the scheduled mediation.
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. If
the parties wish to extend the stay on formal discovery beyond Defendant’s
filing of an answer, the parties may file a stipulation and proposed order
extending the stay on formal discovery until completion of mediation, and the
Court will likely approve such stipulation.
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. At
the parties’ request, the Court will not at this time set a deadline for
Plaintiff to file and serve the Class Certification Motion. Instead, if the August 21, 2025 Joint Status
Report indicates that the Parties have scheduled a mediation to occur by no
later than February 28, 2026, then the Court will defer setting a deadline for
Plaintiff to file and serve the Class Certification Motion until after the
scheduled mediation. If the August 21,
2025 Joint Status Report indicates that the Parties have scheduled a mediation
to occur by no later than February 28, 2026, then the Court will set a deadline
for Plaintiff to file and serve the Class Certification Motionfor approximately
August 21, 2026.
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 Cases 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, Defendant has
identified Masako Fujiya, et al. v. Day-Lee Foods, Inc., Los Angeles
County Superior Court, Case No. 20STCV21664 as a potential related case. By no later than June 23, 2025, Defendant
must file and serve a Notice of Related Cases in the instant action
(25STCV07247) as well as in 20STCV21664.
The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Ruling on Notice of
Related Cases for August 28, 2025, 8:30 AM, Department 9.
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: June 9, 2025
__________________________
ELAINE
LU
Judge
of the Superior Court