Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: KC070199, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: KC070199 Hearing Date: September 27, 2022 Dept: O
The hearing on counsel for Defendant Gels
Logistics, Inc.’s (i.e., Jones, Bell, Abbott,
Fleming & Fitzgerald L.L.P.) Motion to be
Relieved as Counsel is CONTINUED to
October 4, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel is
ordered to give notice.
Background[1]
Case No. KC070199
Plaintiffs Fengjun Chen, Yong Gao, Long He, Zhiming Shu, Yutao Jiang and Weigong Shang
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
allege as follows: Plaintiffs worked for All Access Express, Inc.
(“AAE”) as
truck drivers. AAE violated wage and hour laws, discriminated against
Plaintiffs
based on their
age, created a hostile work environment and attempted to enforce an unlawful
non-compete
agreement.
On January 28, 2020, the court related and consolidated this instant case with Case No.
19PSCV00584;
this instant case was designated the lead case.
On February 10,
2020, Plaintiffs filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein Gels Logistics
Inc. (“GLI”) was
substituted in lieu of Doe 1.
On July 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed three “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Juan Xu was
substituted in
lieu of Doe 2, Tian Long (“Long”) was substituted in lieu of Doe 3, and Mr. Jin
was substituted
in lieu of Doe 4.
On July 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed two “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Tian Lu was
substituted in
lieu of Doe 5 and Xun Jin was substituted in lieu of Doe 6.
On July 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed two “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Lin Wang (“Lin”)
was substituted
in lieu of Doe 7 and Ling Wang was substituted in lieu of Doe 8.
On February 3, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel orally dismissed Lin, without prejudice. On February
16, 2021,
Plaintiffs dismissed Mr. Jin, Lin and Long, without prejudice.
On March 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein Xun Jing was
substituted in
lieu of Doe 9.
On June 7, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against
AAE and Does
1-10 for:
1.
Age Discrimination
2.
Hostile Work Environment
3.
Unlawful Business Practice (Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200)
4.
Failure to Pay Overtime (Labor Code Sections 510, 1194,
1198)
5.
Failure to Provide Rest Breaks (Labor Code Section 226)
6.
Failure to Provide Meal Breaks (Labor Code Section 226)
7.
Failure to Pay Wages When Due (Labor Code Sections 201,
203)
On November 30, 2021, AAE’s default was entered.
A Final Status Conference is set for September 27, 2022. Trial is set for October 11, 2022.
Case No. 19PSCV00584
Plaintiffs Yutao Jiang and Weigong Shang (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows: See above.
On June 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against AAE and Does 1-10 for:
1.
Age Discrimination
2.
Hostile Work Environment
3.
Unlawful Business Practice (Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200)
4.
Failure to Pay Overtime (Labor Code Sections 510, 1194,
1198)
5.
Failure to Provide Rest Breaks (Labor Code Section 226)
6.
Failure to Provide Meal Breaks (Labor Code Section 226)
7.
Failure to Pay Wages When Due (Labor Code Sections 201,
203)
On January 28, 2020, the court related and consolidated this instant case with Case No.
KC070199; Case
No. KC070199 was designated the lead case.
Discussion
Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald L.L.P. (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for GLI (“Client”).
The hearing is continued to October 4, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. (see footnote one). Counsel is instructed to provide notice.
[1] The
motion was filed (and served via overnight mail to the Client and via email and
mail to all other parties) on September 1, 2022 and set for hearing on
September 27, 2022. Per Code of Civil Procedure § 1005, subdivision (b), “all moving and
supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the
hearing. . . if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period
of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the
place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California .
. . and if the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or
another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required
16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by two calendar
days. . .” Per Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B), “[a]ny period of
notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any
period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time
period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended
after service by electronic means by two court days. . .” Additionally, both
Monday, September 5, 2022 and Friday, September 23, 2022 are court holidays and
are thus excluded for purposes of calculating notice.