03-23-16 Minute Order

This is an unofficial transcription of a scan of a court document, the original scanned document can be viewed here.


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CΕΝΤRΑL

 

MINUTE ORDER

 

DATE: 03/23/2016
TIME: 12:00:00 PM

JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Eddie C Sturgeon
CLERK: Deborah Jellison
REPORTER/ERM: Brianna Haro CSR# 13121
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Matt Macone

DEPT: C-67
CASE NO: 37-2011-00102593-CU-OE-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 12/16/2011
CASE TITLE: Felczer vs. Apple Inc [IMAGED]
CASE TYPE: Other employment
CASE CATEGORY: Civil – Unlimited


EVENT TYPE:

Motion Hearing (Civil)


APPEARANCES

Tyler J Belong, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
Jeffrey L Hogue, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
Todd K Boyer, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Julie A Dunne, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Michael G Leggieri, counsel, present for Defendant(s) telephonically.


THIS BEING THE TIME PREVIOUSLY SET FOR:
1. PLAINTIFF’S EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER COMPELLING APPLE TO PRODUCE
BALANCE OF CLASS’ WAGE HISTORY REPORT DATA
2. MOTION TO DECIDE ON DISMISSAL ISSUE RE; FIFTY-FIVE CLASS MEMBERS SET BY THE COURT

The Court notes for the record that it has reviewed the papers filed in the matters on calendar for today.

Attorney Dunne states the issues to be heard and informs the Court that there are two housekeeping issues to be heard first.

Attorney Dunne addresses the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion to Certify a Sub Class and the issue with when the hearing is calendar for and noticed for and presents arguments. Attorney Hogue addresses the Court on when the hearing was originally calendared and when the Court advanced the hearing and presents arguments. After hearing arguments of counsel, the Court continues the April 6th motion to April 20, 2016 at noon in Department 67. The Court notes that the motion is plaintiff’s motion to amend the certification order to add a subclass to it. The Court states that Apple’s opposition is due April 6th and plaintiff’s reply is due April 15th.

Attorney Dunne states that second housekeeping issue is the follow up on the opt out notice and the CPT deposition date. Attorney Dunne notes that there are cross motions for summary judgment on calendar for June 1st and further informs the Court that Apple may bring a motion to decertify the class.

Attorney Hogue presents arguments on the deposition notices and objects to the depositions being arbitrarily set. Attorney Dunne informs the Court that the depositions are being conducted in a geographically convenient area over consecutive days between April 11th and April 14th with the CPT deposition being on April 15th.

Upon the Court’s inquiry as to whether or not there are any depositions this Friday, Attorney Dunne states that the deposition previously set for Friday has been moved to April 15th. Attorney Hogue states that he wants the deposition on March 25th per the original notice. Attorney Dunne presents arguments. The Court states that the deposition will take place on April 15th and inquires as to where it will be.

Attorney Boyer states that it is in Litler’s counsel’s office in Irvine. Attorney Belong informs the Court that this would mean plaintiff’s reply and the deposition would be on the same date and requests an extension on the reply. The Court finds this to be appropriate and moves the reply date to April 18th for plaintiff’s reply.

Attorney Hogue requests that Apple not arbitrarily notice depositions but rather they submit a list of depositions to be taken to plaintiff’s counsel’s office and counsel all work together with their calendars in setting the dates. The Court expects both parties to communicate with each other when setting deposition dates and to get the depositions done when everyone is available. Upon the Court’s inquiry, this concludes the house keeping issues.

Attorney Dunne addresses the Court on the Proposed Order for the March 2nd hearing and submits a copy of the proposed order to plaintiff’s counsel. Counsel review the proposed order and agree to it. The Court signs the Order After Hearing for the March 2, 2016 hearing. Counsel are given copies of the signed order. Attorney Dunne addresses the Court on the February 10, 2016 proposed order and redactions and notes that plaintiff’s counsel objects to defendant’s proposed order. Attorney Hogue informs the Court that the courtroom clerk has the proposed orders and the objections. Attorney Leggieri requests to stay on issues that are on the calendar and notes that after the February 10th hearing both sides submitted proposed orders with language regarding the depositions. Attorney Leggieri reads excerpts from the transcript and states that he wants the last sentence plaintiff added to be removed. The Court states that it will use Apple’s proposed order.

Attorney Leggieri presents additional arguments. Attorney Dunne presents arguments. Attorney Hogue presents arguments.

The Court inquires as to whether or not there is any legal significance between Final Trial Plan and Post Certification Supplemental Trial Plan. Attorney Hogue presents arguments.Attorney Leggieri presents Arguments. Attorney Belong presents arguments. Attorney Leggieri reads page 9 of the July 21, 2014 Order. The Court notes it is a Supplemental Plan at Trial. The Court requests Attorney Dunne address her issue with Serve vs. Submit. Attorney Dunne presents arguments. The Court states that the minute order is submit so it is submit. The Court inquires if counsel have a clean copy of the order for the Court to sign now. Attorney Leggieri states that he will have one brought to the courtroom today. The Court requests that counsel bring the order today and give it to the bailiff. The Court will sign the order as discussed.

The Court now turns to the issue on calendar the enforcement on the 55 class members. Attorney Dunne presents arguments and states that there were 54 members who opted out and that defendant wants these members dismissed and that has not been done. Attorney Dunne states the history and time line on these 54 members. Attorney Dunne informs the Court that these 54 members signed release agreements and should be dismissed. Attorney Dunne presents additional arguments. Attorney Hogue presents arguments and states that he has not interviewed the 54 people and would need to do so before dismissing them. Attorney Belong presents arguments.

The Court reminds counsel that there is a trial date coming up in this case and that counsel need to resolve these issues and move the case forward. The Court states that this should be an easy issue to resolve. Attorney Hogue presents additional arguments. The Court restates that counsel need to move this case forward. Attorney Hogue presents additional arguments. Attorney Dunne presents arguments and states that she will have to file 54 Motions for Summary Judgment. Attorney Hogue presents arguments. Attorney Dunne presents arguments. Attorney Leggieri presents arguments. Attorney Dunne presents additional arguments. The Court notes that the Motion to Dismiss the 54 Members was briefed by both sides and the briefs are on the Court’s desk. The Court informs counsel that on April 20th there will be a ruling on the application to amend to include sub class and a ruling regarding the dismissal of the 54 members with releases.

The Court will allow additional supplemental pleadings on the Motion to Dismiss the 54 Class Members with Releases by April 8th at noon. The Court states that if counsel are going to file 54 Motions for Summary Judgment they are to let the Court know and the Court will not rule on this issue. The Court reminds counsel that this case is going to trial in October. Counsel will get the ruling on the 54 class members unless counsel tell the Court they will be filing Motions for Summary Judgment on the 54 members.
The Court now turns to plaintiff’s ex-parte application to compel Apple to produce. The Court notes that in Attorney Boyer’s paperwork he requested an extension of two weeks. Attorney Boyer informs the Court that the issue is getting the information from Kronos and presents arguments. Attorney Belong presents arguments. The Court states that defendant will turn over records if it finds discrepancies and/or missing data. Attorney Boyer agrees with this. Attorney Belong argues and states he is not sure where the problem lies but he knows there is a problem. Attorney Boyer states that is he trying to clarify the records. Attorney Leggieri presents arguments.

The Court states that it expects Attorney Boyer will identify what the problem is and explain to plaintiff’s counsel why there is a difference. Attorney Boyer informs the Court that he hopes to have this information by next week, but would like two weeks out of an abundance of caution as he is working with Kronos. The Court requests that Attorney Boyer explain to plaintiff’s counsel why there is a discrepancy as best as he can. The Court notes that this should be done by April 6th.

The Court informs counsel that it has received the boxes of documents submitted on the cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Attorney Dunne informs the Court that the documents are plaintiff’s lodged documents on the motion to certify the sub class. Attorney Leggieri addresses the Court on the proposed order submitted to the Court. Attorney Leggieri states that he is concerned that the Court, when it receives proposed orders, assumes both sides have agreed to the order. Attorney Leggieri states that plaintiff’s counsel have filed proposed orders without noting Apple’s objections to the proposed order. Attorney Leggieri requests that plaintiff follow Rules of Court when submitting proposed orders. Attorney Belong presents arguments.

The Court states that counsel are to submit proposed orders signed off on by the opposing side. The Court informs counsel that they are to adopt this process. Attorney Hogue requests that in lieu of counsel submitting proposed orders the courtroom clerk prepare a minute order as the final order of the court. The Court informs counsel that the Court is not able to do special things for one case and that due to budget constraints the clerks are not able to prepare counsel’s proposed orders. The Court admonishes counsel that it is already having staff work through a lunch time break to hear counsels’ matters and that another clerk had to be called in for this hearing so that the regular clerk could take a lunch break. The Court informs counsel that they will need to prepare the proposed orders and send to the opposing side for approval. The Court states that Attorney Boyer and/or Attorney Leggieri are to prepare the proposed order for today and send to Attorney Hogue for approval.

The Court admonishes counsel that the Court should not have to deal with 54 class member issue and that counsel should resolve this issue.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Sub Class Hearing (Civil) is continued pursuant to Court’s motion to 04/20/2016 at 12:00PM before Judge Eddie C Sturgeon.

Defendant’s Motion to Decide Dismissal of 54 Class Members Who Opted Out Hearing (Civil) is
continued pursuant to Court’s motion to 04/20/2016 at 12:00PM before Judge Eddie C Sturgeon.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed by
Judge Eddie C Sturgeon


Distinctions

Hogue Belong Law Sexual Harassment Attorneys Million Dollar Advocate

Contact Us

Hogue & Belong Law
170 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Contact Form
(619) 238-4720 (office)
(619) 270-9856 (fax)
inquiries@hoguebelonglaw.com

Why Hogue & Belong

At Hogue & Belong Law, we offer experienced Antitrust, Class Action Lawsuit and Sexual Harassment Attorneys in San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County.