Arnaudov et al v. California Delta Mechanical, Inc et al

Filing 127

ORDER TO REMEDY DEFICIENCIES IN PRETRIAL STATEMENT Re: Dkt. No. 122 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 1/15/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MARTIN ARNAUDOV, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

v.
CALIFORNIA DELTA MECHANICAL,
INC, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.13-cv-02306-NC
ORDER TO REMEDY
DEFICIENCIES IN PRETRIAL
STATEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 122

15
16

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ and Delta’s joint pretrial statement. The undersigned

17

Magistrate Judge’s trial standing order requires that the joint pretrial statement contain a

18

series of items. This includes a “(2) a detailed description of the relief sought and the

19

evidentiary material to be presented in support of such relief”; “(3) a concise statement of

20

all undisputed and stipulated facts”; “(5) a list of proposed stipulations for pretrial and trial

21

purposes”; “(8) a list of witnesses . . . and a description of the testimony each witness will

22

give”; “(9) a list of items to be offered as exhibits at trial, including a description of the

23

substance of and each party’s objections to each exhibit”; and “(13) a statement concerning

24

whether bifurcation or a separate trial of individual issues is necessary.” Magistrate Judge

25

Nathanael M. Cousins Trial Preparation Standing Order (emphasis added).

26

Because Delta and plaintiffs have failed to satisfy these requirements, the Court

27

orders the parties to submit a new joint pretrial statement that corrects the deficiencies

28

identified below.
13-cv-02306-NC

1

I.

Under the section “Relief Sought,” plaintiffs list 11 forms of relief sought, including

2
3
4
5
6

“special, general, compensatory, and punitive damages,” penalties and amounts for various
sections of the California Labor Code, and liquidated damages under both state and federal
employment laws. Other than a reference to $4,000 in penalties under Labor Code §
226(e), plaintiffs offer no overall monetary damages amount.
The Court needs to know how much this case is worth. Put differently, plaintiffs

7
8

must state how much money they intend to seek from Delta.
It also appears that plaintiffs seek to bring overlapping causes of action under both

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

the California Labor Code as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act, and other state and
federal employment laws. Plaintiffs need to provide a “detailed description of the relief
sought” under each of these statutes. In particular, the plaintiffs omit how much plaintiffs
and the alleged 100-plus PAGA members are entitled to in civil penalties.
In short, plaintiffs must provide the Court with more details. Concluding the

14
15
16
17
18

“Relief Sought” section with a catch-all statement that plaintiffs seek “[s]uch other relief
as required by law, which the Court deems just and proper” is the antipode of “detailed
description.”
II.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

UNDISPUTED AND STIPULATED FACTS
Plaintiffs and Delta list 20 facts and conclude that the “parties are continuing to meet

19
20

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF RELIEF SOUGHT

and confer regarding additional factual stipulations.” Trial is in less than three weeks.
Plaintiffs and Delta must submit a complete list of undisputed and stipulated facts.
III.

PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
There is a blank space after the term “Defendants” in this section. Delta needs to

include its proposed stipulations for the purposes of pretrial and trial.
IV. DISPUTED POINTS OF LAW
As it did in its motion to strike, Delta raises concerns over the manageability of
plaintiffs’ PAGA claims. Delta states there are 135 non-represented PAGA members,
allegations of 15 different labor code violations,” and a “diversity of facts” that would
13-cv-02306-NC

2

1

make the trial unmanageable. Dkt. No. 122 at 23. The Court already denied Delta’s prior

2

motion to strike. Dkt. No. 114.
Still, it is not the Court’s responsibility to propose the best way to manage the

3
4

presentation of these claims at trial. That is plaintiffs’ responsibility. In response to

5

Delta’s concerns, plaintiffs state that the “predicate facts and labor violations set forth in

6

Plaintiffs other claims will prove everything necessary for their PAGA claims.” Dkt. No.

7

122 at 23. Plaintiffs go on to describe various alleged admissions by defendants that they

8

believe demonstrate liability. Plaintiffs appear to conflate the issue of liability with the

9

issue of manageability at trial. See id. (“Thus, there is no manageability issue. Plaintiffs
can easily demonstrate liability under PAGA through their testimony, the exhibits, and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants’ admissions.”) (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs need to explain to the Court how they intend to efficiently present these

12
13

claims at trial for the purpose of establishing damages. For instance, even if PAGA

14

liability can be established by way of Delta’s liability on other claims for the represented

15

parties, plaintiffs still need to establish to the jury how much those claims are worth for the

16

alleged 135 non-represented PAGA members. As Delta has pointed out, there are three

17

different divisions within its operations, each of which consist of workers of various job

18

classifications, pay, hours worked, and reimbursement amounts requested. Plaintiffs have

19

not addressed Delta’s concerns over how these issues will be managed at trial and must do

20

so.

21

V.

22

DESCRIPTION OF TESTIMONY FROM EACH WITNESS
Delta lists four named witnesses it intends to call at trial, but fails to describe what

23

each of those witnesses will testify about. Delta instead states that the witnesses “will

24

provide testimony concerning various aspects of the most of the issue [sic] of this case.”

25

Dkt. No. 122 at 31. Delta must describe what each witness will testify to. Moreover, both

26

plaintiffs and Delta list “Impeachment witnesses.” Delta and plaintiffs need to provide

27

specific names of witnesses, and a description of their testimony.

28
13-cv-02306-NC

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

VI. DESRIPTION OF EXHIBITS
Both plaintiffs and Delta list close to 300 exhibits. Some descriptions are selfexplanatory (e.g., employee W-9 forms, employee tax returns). Others are less clear and
fail to describe the substance of the exhibit (e.g., “124. Email from non-plaintiff,” “129.
Emails”). Even exhibit descriptions such as “140. Request for payment” fail to describe
who requested the payment and when. The parties must look through this list again and
make sure that each item describes the parties concerned, what the exhibit is, and the date
that relates to the exhibit.
VII. STATEMENT CONCERNING BIFURCATION
The parties fail to make any statement concerning whether bifurcation or a separate
trial of individual issues is necessary. There is simply a blank space after the heading
“Bifurcation and separate trial issues.” Dkt. No. 122 at 47. The parties must correct this
error.
VIII. CONCLUSION
In light of the deficiencies identified above, the Court orders plaintiffs and Delta to
resubmit a new joint pretrial statement with corrections by noon on January 20, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2015

19

____________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13-cv-02306-NC

4