Marquez et al v. Hyatt Corporation et al

Filing 51


Download PDF
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

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?