Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00780/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00780-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT/RULE 26(F) REPORT 

JEREMY S. MILLSTONE, ESQ. (SBN 166901) 

JOY C. ROSENQUIST, ESQ. (SBN 214926) 

MILLSTONE PETERSON & WATTS, LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

2267 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 210 

Roseville, CA 95661 

Phone: 916.780.8222 

Fax: 916.780.8775 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Mexicali Restaurant Group, Inc. 

and David Villanueva 

JAMES DAL BON, ESQ. (SBN 157942) 

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES DAL BON

28 North 1st, Suite 210 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Phone: 408.297.4729 

Fax: 408.297.4728 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Gerardo Espinoza, Mariel Pacho and 

Areli Hernandez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GERARDO ESPINOZA; MARIEL PACHO; 

ARELI HERNANDEZ, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

MEXICALI RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; 

DAVID VILLANUEVA and DOES 1 -10, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

) 

Case No. 5:08-CV-00780 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT/RULE 26(f) REPORT; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 

Date: September 15, 2008 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 8 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS Document 13 Filed 07/25/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT/RULE 26(F) REPORT 

1. Jurisdiction and Service.

 a. Basis for Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims: Fair Labor 

Standards Act. 

 b. Whether any issues exist regarding personal jurisdiction or venue: No. 

 c. Whether any parties remained to be served: No; all parties have been served. 

2. Facts.

 Plaintiffs’ Statement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misclassified and/or failed to 

pay Plaintiff’s at the legally required overtime rate for all overtime hours worked by Plaintiffs during 

the four years preceding the filing of the Complaint. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed 

to pay them all wages due at the time of their termination (i.e., the unpaid overtime wages) and that 

paystubs received from Defendants lack the information required by Labor Code § 226. 

 Defendants’ Statement: Defendants deny misclassifying Plaintiffs, or any of them, 

or failing to pay Plaintiffs overtime when they worked overtime hours. Plaintiff Areli Hernandez 

has never been terminated but rather remains employed by Defendant MRG. 

3. Legal Issues.

 a. Whether Plaintiffs, or any of them, were misclassified by Defendants as 

exempt employees not eligible for overtime pay. 

 b. Whether Defendant MRG willfully failed to pay all wages due and owing to 

Plaintiffs Espinoza and Pacho when they separated their employment. 

4. Motions.

 No motions are pending. Defendants anticipate bringing a motion for summary 

adjudication or summary judgment following completion of discovery. 

5. Amendment of Pleadings.

 Plaintiffs do not anticipate amending their complaint. 

At this time Defendants do not anticipate amending their answer. 

6. Evidence Preservation.

 Defendants have been instructed to retain, and have retained, all wage and wagerelated records pertaining to Plaintiffs. 

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS Document 13 Filed 07/25/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT/RULE 26(F) REPORT 

7. Disclosures.

 The Parties have not yet made their initial Rule 26 disclosures. They anticipate doing 

so by thirty days. 

8. Discovery.

 No discovery has occurred to date. 

 Plaintiffs anticipate the following discovery: propounding special interrogatories, 

requests for admission, deposition and document demands on each Plaintiff, to be completed within 

150 days. 

 Defendants anticipate propounding special interrogatories, requests for admission, 

and document demands on each Plaintiff, to be completed within 150 days. 

9. Class Actions.

 Not applicable. 

10. Related Cases. 

None. 

11. Relief.

 Plaintiffs seek to recover their unpaid wages (amount unspecified); the maximum 

Labor Code § 203 penalty (30 days’ wages) because of Defendants’ alleged failure to pay all wages 

due Plaintiffs at the time of their terminations; and a Labor Code § 226 penalty (up to $4,000) for 

Defendants’ alleged failure to provide accurate, itemized paystubs. Plaintiffs also seek to recover 

liquidated damages (i.e., doubling of the alleged unpaid wages), pre-judgment interest, and 

reasonable attorney fees and costs. 

12. Settlement and ADR.

 Defendants have filed their ADR certification statements. 

 The Parties have stipulated to mediation. The Court has assigned the case to 

mediation, to be completed by November 7, 2008. 

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes.

 The Parties consent to a magistrate judge for all purposes. 

/ / / 

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS Document 13 Filed 07/25/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT/RULE 26(F) REPORT 

14. Other References.

 The Parties have stipulated to mediation. The Court has assigned the case to 

mediation, to be completed by November 7, 2008. The parties do not anticipate the need for any 

further reference. 

15. Narrowing of Issues.

 The case is not overly complex; the issues already are relatively narrow. If the parties 

determine a further narrowing of the issues is appropriate and can be achieved, they will work 

together to do so via stipulation. 

16. Expedited Schedule.

 This case can be handled on an expedited basis. 

17. Scheduling.

 The Parties submit the following proposed discovery and trial schedule: 

 Discovery cut-off: January 20, 2009 

 Hearing dispositive motions: April 15, 2009 

 Expert disclosure: November 20, 2008 

 Pre-trial conference: May 25, 2009 

Trial: July 2009 

18. Trial.

 Plaintiffs’ Statement: This case is best suited for a bench trial; however, Plaintiff’s 

counsel believes that it will take three to five days since the parties speak Spanish and require 

translators. 

 Defendants’ Statement: This case is best-suited for a bench trial, which Defendants 

expect to take no more than two days. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

*** ORDER *** 

 In light of the parties' representation that they consent to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes 

(see paragraph 13 in the above Joint Statement), the Clerk of Court shall reassign this case. 

Dated: July 24, 2008 _________________________________ 

 JAMES WARE 

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS Document 13 Filed 07/25/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT/RULE 26(F) REPORT 

19. Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons.

To Defendants’ knowledge, there are no non-party interested entities or persons. 

DATED: July 7, 2008 MILLSTONE, PETERSON & WATTS, LLP

 Attorneys at Law 

By: /s/ JEREMY S. MILLSTONE 

 JEREMY S. MILLSTONE

Attorneys for Defendants 

Mexicali Restaurant Group, Inc. 

and David Villanueva 

DATED: July 3, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF JAMES DAL BON

By: /s/ JAMES DAL BON 

 (As Authorized on 7/3/08) 

 JAMES DAL BON

Attorneys for Defendants 

Mexicali Restaurant Group, Inc. 

and David Villanueva 

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a 

"conformed" signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. 

MILLSTONE PETERSON & WATTS, LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

/s/ Jeremy S. Millstone 

Case 5:08-cv-00780-RS Document 13 Filed 07/25/08 Page 5 of 5