Hurst v. Buczek Enterprises, LLC
Filing
24
ORDER RESETTING STATUS CONFERENCE. Status Conference set for 12/16/2011 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen. Status Report due by 12/9/2011.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/3/11. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Alde J. Parker, California State Bar No. 196808
en
Nath H. Gero
han
onimo, Calif
fornia State Bar No. 26
64768
WEINTRAUB GE
ENSHLEA CHEDIAK
C
Law Corporation
400 Capitol Ma 11th Floor
all,
ramento, Ca
alifornia 95
5814
Sacr
Telephone: 916.558.600
9
00
Facs
simile:
916.446.1611
9
Attorneys for De
efendant and Cross-Com
d
mplainant
Bucz Enterpris LLC
zek
ses,
7
UNITED STATES DIS
STRICT COU
URT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFO
N
ORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AD
BRA HURST,
Plaintiff,
P
vs.
BUC
CZEK ENTER
RPRISES, LLC and DOE 1C,
ES
25,
Defendants.
D
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
AND RELATED CROSS-ACT
D
TION
Case No. 3
3:11-cv-01379-EMC
JOINT CAS MANAGEMENT
SE
CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND FED.
D
RULE. CIV. PROC. 26(f) DISCOVE PLAN
ERY
ORDER RESETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
Plaintiff, Brad Hurst and Defend
dant Buczek Enterprises LLC hereb submit the following
k
s,
by
e
Joint Case Management Co
t
onference Statement.
1.
Ju
urisdiction and Service: All necess
a
sary parties have been s
served. This case was
22
remo
oved from the Alamed County Superior Co
t
da
S
ourt and is before this Court purs
suant to its
23
diversity jurisdict
tion as foun in 28 U.S
nd
S.C. 144(b).
24
2.
Facts:
25
a.
Plaintiff’s Contentions: Buczek Enter
B
rprises, LLC is a propert preservation services
ty
26
company, whic hires unlicensed wo
ch
orkers to p
perform wor on homes for whic a State
rk
ch
27
Contractor’s lic
cense is req
quired.
28
inde
ependent contractor by Buczek Ente
erprises, LLC and its pre
C
edecessor Bu
uczek Enterp
prises, Inc.,
{1379
9831.DOCX;}
Pla
aintiff Brad Hurst alle
eges he was misclassif
fied as an
1
Joint Ca Managemen Conference S
ase
nt
Statement and
FRCP 26(f) D
Discovery Plan
1
and is asking fo payment of unpaid wages, overt
or
o
w
time, failure to provide meal and r breaks,
e
rest
2
unre
eimbursed expenses and penalties under the California Labor Code Plaintiff Hurst also
e
e.
3
seek attorneys’ fees in an amount which has ye to be det
ks
’
et
termined, as well as fo an order
s
or
4
enjo
oining defend
dant from its unlawful conduct.
c
5
b.
Defendant’s Contention Buczek Enterprises, LLC is a property preservation
D
ns:
,
6
company, which utilizes in
ndependent contractors to perform its property preserva
s
m
ation work.
7
Plain alleges he was mi
ntiff
isclassified as an indep
a
pendent contractor, an seeks da
nd
amages for
8
unpa wages, overtime, fa
aid
ailure to pro
ovide meal a rest bre
and
eaks, unreim
mbursed exp
penses and
9
pena
alties under the Califo
r
ornia Labor Code.
10
P
Plaintiff also seeks att
o
torneys’ fee and an
es
injun
nction again Defendan
nst
nt.
11
Defendant Buzcek Enterprises, LLC seeks damages a
E
according to proof for breach of
o
12
cont
tract, and br
reach of imp
plied covena of good faith and fa dealing. Defendant also seeks
ant
air
t
13
attor
rneys’ fees and costs.
a
14
3.
Le
egal Issues:
15
a.
Jo Contentions: Plaint brings ni ne causes o action for Failure to Pay Wages
oint
tiff
of
r
16
Due and Owin under California labor Code §200 et seq., Failu to Pay Overtime
ng
C
l
e
ure
y
17
Com
mpensation under Califo
u
ornia Labor Code §§51 0, 1194, and 1198, F
Failure to Pro
ovide Meal
18
and Rest Breaks under California Labo Code §226.7, Failure to Keep, Maintain a Furnish
s
or
and
19
Accu
urate Wage Statements and Time Records und California Labor Co §§226 and 1174,
R
der
ode
20
Brea of Impli Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Violatio of Califo
ach
ied
d
on
ornia Labor
21
Cod §2802, Unfair Comp
de
U
petition unde California Business & Profession Code §17
er
a
ns
7200, Civil
22
Pena
alties pursua to Califo
ant
ornia Labor Code §§ 2698 and 26
699, and Fa
ailure to Pay Minimum
y
23
Wag under California La
ge
C
abor Code §§1197, 1197.1. De
efendant Bu
uzcek Enterp
prises, LLC
24
bring claims fo breach of contract, and breach of implied covenant o good faith and fair
gs
or
o
h
d
of
25
dealing.
26
ntral legal issue relate to these causes o action is whether Defendant
ed
e
of
The cen
27
misc
classified Pla
aintiff as an independen contracto r rather than an employ
nt
n
yee. Anothe threshold
er
28
legal issue is wh
hether defen
ndant has st
tanding to s or defen a suit sin it is not licensed to
sue
nd
nce
{1379
9831.DOCX;}
2
Joint Ca Managemen Conference S
ase
nt
Statement and
FRCP 26(f) D
Discovery Plan
1
do business und Californi law.
b
der
ia
2
b.
Plaintiff’s Co
ontentions: Another leg issue is whether C
gal
s
California B
Business &
3
Profe
essions Cod §2750.5 renders Plaintiff an employee as a matte of law b
de
5
P
er
because he
4
perfo
ormed work for which a contracto license w require
k
or’s
was
ed. Other legal issues exist as to
5
whet
ther defenda has any viable affirm
ant
mative defen
nses to its ac
ctions.
6
4.
In
nitial Disclos
sures: Plaintiff and Defe
endant have each made initial disc
e
closures.
7
5.
Discovery: The parties have initiate some pre
D
T
h
ed
eliminary wr
ritten discov
very. Some
8
limited depositio are anticipated prio to the se
ons
or
ettlement conference. P
Pursuant to Rule 26(f),
9
the parties continue to affir that the parties will c
p
rm
p
conduct discovery cons
sistent with t Federal
the
10
11
Rule
es.
a.
Plaintiff’s Co
ontentions:
Plaintiff p
proposes th following discovery plan and
he
g
12
sche
edule: The Plaintiff estim
P
mates the time required for each deposition w exceed those time
d
will
13
limits as set fort in Federa Rules of Civil Proced
th
al
C
dure, Rule 3
30. Plaintiff anticipates taking no
f
s
14
more than 9 de
e
epositions excluding ex
e
xperts. In a
addition, Pla
aintiff propo
oses to serve no more
15
than 65 individu interroga
n
ual
atories, 75 individual do
ocument req
quests, and 55 individu requests
ual
16
for admission. In addition documen will be subpoenaed from third parties as required.
a
n,
nts
d
d
s
17
Plain does no request at this time any addition changes with regard to the lim
ntiff
ot
a
nal
s
d
mitations on
18
disco
overy impos
sed by the federal rule of civil p
es
procedure o by local rules, exce Plaintiff
or
ept
19
requ
uests expert disclosures and expert discovery b made after the ruling by this Co on any
be
g
ourt
20
moti
ions for sum
mmary judgm
ment brough by the par
ht
rties.
21
b.
Defendant’s Contentions: Defenda seeks di
D
ant
iscovery con
ncerning (a) Plaintiff’s
22
emp
ployment wit Defendan (b) Plaint
th
nt;
tiff’s claims; (c) Plaintiff alleged d
f’s
damages; (d Plaintiff’s
d)
23
failure to timely perform services in a good and re
g
easonable w
workmanlike manner; (e Plaintiff’s
e
e)
24
brea of his du
ach
uties to comply with all relevant law rules and regulations.
ws,
d
25
i.
Defen
ndant propo
oses the follo
owing discov
very plan an schedule:
nd
26
ii.
Defen
ndant estima
ates the tim required for each d
me
deposition w exceed
will
those limits as set forth in Fed
t
deral Rules of Civil Proc
cedure, Rule 30.
e
27
iii.
28
{1379
9831.DOCX;}
Defen
ndant anticipates takin no more than 10 depositions excluding
ng
e
s
3
Joint Ca Managemen Conference S
ase
nt
Statement and
FRCP 26(f) D
Discovery Plan
expert
ts.
1
2
iv
v.
Defen
ndant propo
oses to serve no more th 55 spec interroga
e
han
cial
atories,
3
and 55 requests for production of docum
5
f
ments.
4
v.
Defen
ndant propo
oses a non-expert fact discovery cut-off of Fe
ebruary 29,
5
2012.
6
vi
i.
Defen
ndant does not reques at this tim any additional cha
st
me
anges with
7
regard to the limitations on d
d
discovery im
mposed by th Federal Rules or by
he
8
Local rules.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
6.
Settlement an ADR:
nd
The parties have a settlement conference s
s
scheduled fo Novembe 30, 2011, at 10:00
or
er
.
a.m. in Courtroom 17.
7.
Other Matters as may fa
O
acilitate the just, speed and inex
e
dy,
xpensive dis
sposition of
this matter:
None kn
nown.
Date Octobe 31, 2011
ed:
er
16
17
WE
EINTRAUB G
GENSHLEA CHEDIAK
Law Corporatiion
w
By:
18
19
/s/: Ald J. Parke
den
er
Alden J Parker
J.
State B No. 196
Bar
6808
Attorne for Defen
eys
ndant and C
Cross-Comp
plainant
Buczek Enterprises LLC
k
s,
20
21
22
DU
UCKWORTH PETERS LE
H
EBOWITZ O
OLIVIER LLP
23
By:
24
25
RT
U
O
{1379
9831.DOCX;}
C
DERED
SO OR ED
IT IS
DIFI
AS MO
4
IA
28
ISTRIC
ES D
T
T
__________________________
TA
Edward M. Chen
United States District Judge
S
27
IT IS SO ORDERED that the Status Conference set for 11/7/11 is reset for 12/16/11 at 10:30 a.m.
An updated joint status report shall be filed by 12/9/11.
UNIT
ED
26
/s/: Th omas E. Du
uckworth
Thoma E. Duckwo
as
orth
Attorne for Brad Hurst
eys
Joint Ca Managemen Conference S
ase
nt
Statement and
FRCP 26(f) D
Discovery Plan
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?