Juarez et al v. Jani-King of California, Inc. et al

Filing 248

ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 229 MOTION to Vacate Summary Judgment Order Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Order Remanding Case for Further Proceedings. Supplemental Discovery due by 2/22/2019. Petition to authorize further discovery f iled by 2/27/19. Further Case Management Conference set for 2/6/2019 is CONTINUED to MONDAY, 3/4/2019 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor. Request at Dkt. no. 247 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/31/2019. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9
10

CASE NO. 09-cv-03495-YGR
ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

vs.
JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.,

Re: Dkt. No. 229

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On December 14, 2018, this Court issued an order finding that the California Supreme

13

Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018)

14

applies retroactively to the instant action and vacated the summary judgment order previously

15

issued in this case. (Dkt. No. 240.) The Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer on

16

defendants’ proposed additional discovery and a proposed schedule. (Id.)

17

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint case management statement wherein they

18

disagree regarding the schedule and the need for any discovery. (Dkt. No. 246.) Relevant here,

19

the Dynamex Court expressly adopted the Massachusetts version of the “ABC” test for

20

determining employment status under the California wage orders. Under that test, an employer

21

alleged to have violated the wage orders must prove that: “(A) the worker is free from the control

22

and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the

23

contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (B) that the worker performs work that is

24

outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily

25

engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the

26

work performed.” 4 Cal. 5th at 957 (emphasis in original). If the employer is not able to establish

27

all three prongs of the test, the worker is an employee. Id. This is the test that applies to

28

determine whether plaintiffs and the putative class in this case are employees or independent

1

contractors.
Defendants claim to need additional discovery to address prongs (B) and (C) of the ABC

2
3

test. However, their filings with the Court suggest that these topics were previously the subject of

4

discovery. (See Docket No. 233 at 7–8.) By definition, the facts from many years ago have not

5

changed, nor are they unknown; the only issue is how they are to be applied under the Dynamex

6

standard. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to reopen discovery.
That said, all parties shall supplement any prior discovery requests by no later than Friday,

7

February 22, 2019. Further, the Court will allow either party to petition the Court to authorize

9

specific discovery. In this regard, the party must provide the Court with the actual request(s) and

10

explain (i) why the information could not be or was not previously requested, and (ii) the goal of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

obtaining such information. Such a petition must be filed no later than Wednesday, February 27,

12

2019.

13

The case management conference scheduled for February 6, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. is

14

CONTINUED to Monday, March 4, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. in the Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street,

15

Oakland, California in Courtroom 1. Accordingly, the parties’ request to continue the same to

16

February 14 or 19, 2019, (Dkt. No. 247), is DENIED AS MOOT.

17

This Order terminates Docket Number 247.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: January 31, 2019
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2