Marquez et al v. Hyatt Corporation et al

Filing 51

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 41 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCE ORDER OF SUPERIOR COURT COMPELLING DISCOVERY RE: DEFENDANT NICOLE PASCARIELLO. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/7/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

AMELIA MARQUEZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 16-cv-06089-BLF

v.
HYATT CORPORATION, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE
ORDER OF SUPERIOR COURT

Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to Enforce Order of the Superior Court, to Enter Default, or

20

Alternatively, Motion to Compel Production re Defendant Nicole Pascariello’s (“Pascariello”)

21

Failure to Produce Documents and Provide Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests

22

for Production and for Sanctions. See ECF 41.

23

Pascariello is a defendant in this employment action, although she has not yet appeared in

24

federal court during the time since this case was removed from Monterey County Superior Court.

25

Plaintiffs allege that Pascariello, along with the other defendants, employed them as janitorial

26

workers and wrongfully misclassified them as independent contractors, violated wage and hour

27

laws, and engaged in other unlawful employment practices. See generally Second Amended

28

Complaint (“SAC”), ECF 1-2.

1

On July 18, 2014, when the case was still in state court, Plaintiffs served Pascariello with

2

Requests for Documents. See Declaration of Phyllis Katz (Katz Decl.) ¶ 3, ECF 44; Katz Decl. Ex.

3

2, ECF 44-2. Pascariello served a written response on August 22, 2014 and objected to nearly all

4

of Plaintiffs’ requests. Katz Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. 3, ECF 44-3. Pascariello then served “minimal

5

documents” in response to the discovery requests on September 22, 2014. See Katz Decl. Ex. 6;

6

Declaration of Elena Dineen in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF 44-6 ¶ 7.

7

Plaintiffs’ counsel then sent a meet and confer letter to Pascariello’s counsel who requested a time

8

extension to respond to the discovery. Plaintiffs were later apprised that Pascariello had filed a

9

substitution of counsel, and Plaintiffs again provided time extensions for Pascariello to hire new

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

counsel and to respond to the document requests. Id. ¶¶ 8-21.
After further unsuccessful attempts to meet and confer with Pascariello, Plaintiffs filed a

12

motion to compel further discovery responses and request for sanctions against Pascariello in

13

Monterey County Superior Court on March 30, 2015. See Katz Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 4-6. On May 11,

14

2015, the Honorable Susan J. Matcham of Monterey County Superior Court granted Plaintiffs’

15

motion to compel further discovery and ordered as follows:

16

(1)

Each and every objection made by Defendant NICOLE PASCARIELLO to

17

Plaintiffs’ Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents Set One is

18

overruled.

19

(2)

documents in her custody, possession, and control.

20
21

Defendant NICOLE PASCARIELLO is ORDERED to produce all responsive

(3)

Defendant NICOLE PASCARIELLO is ORDERED to conduct a full and diligent

22

search of all custodians and locations reasonably likely to have responsive

23

documents, to produce any additional responsive documents located thereby, and to

24

provide a response detailing their diligent search for responsive documents and

25

confirming that all responsive documents have been produced.

26
27
28

(4)

Defendant NICOLE PASCARIELLO is ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount
of $2,975.00.

See Katz Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 1 ECF 44-1 (“Superior Court Order”).
2

1

Pascariello has not complied with the Superior Court Order. See Katz Decl. ¶ 7. This

2

action was removed to federal court on October 21, 2016. See ECF 1. Pascariello consented to

3

this removal. Id. at 3. Despite her consent to removal, she has not appeared in this federal action

4

or responded to communications from Plaintiffs’ counsel. See Katz Decl. ¶ 8. Prior to filing the

5

instant motion before this Court, Plaintiffs again made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute,

6

but Pascariello has not responded. Id. ¶ 9.

7

On December 7, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the Order
of the Superior Court, to enter default, or alternatively, to compel production of documents re:

9

Nicole Pascariello’s failure to produce documents and provide further responses. Pascariello did

10

not respond to Plaintiffs’ motion or appear at the hearing despite Plaintiffs’ notice to her of these

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

proceedings. See ECF 45 (Proof of Service).

12

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the Superior Court Order in light of

13

the underlying record in this case. For the following reasons as well as those discussed on the

14

record at the hearing, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1450:

15

“Whenever any action is removed from a State court to a district court of the United States… All

16

injunctions, orders, and other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in

17

full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district court.” As the Supreme Court has

18

held, state court orders remain in effect after the case is removed to federal court so long as the

19

order does not conflict with federal law. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters &

20

Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423, 436 (1974) (finding that

21

“Congress clearly intended to preserve the effectiveness of state court orders after removal” and

22

that “[a]fter removal, the federal court takes the case up where the State court left it off.”)

23

The Court finds that the Superior Court order against Pascariello is consistent with the

24

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery, and does not conflict with federal law. See

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 34, 37. The record in the Superior Court provides a sufficient basis for this

26

Court to enforce the Superior Court Order against Nicole Pascariello. As such, the Court hereby

27

ADOPTS the Order of the Superior Court Compelling Further Discovery. See ECF 44-1. In so

28

doing, each of Pascariello’s objections to Plaintiffs’ requests for production are OVERRULED.
3

1

Nicole Pascariello is ORDERED to comply with the Superior Court’s Order on or before

2

December 22, 2017. The Court hereby informs Ms. Pascariello that failure to comply with this

3

Order may subject you to terminating sanctions and further monetary sanctions.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8
9

Dated: December 7, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4