Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01148/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01148-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AM PM Arco
Defendant
Sohan Singh Braich
Plaintiff
Lakha Corporation, Inc
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOHAN SINGH BRAICH,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAKHA CORPORATION, INC., dba AM

PM ARCO,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-1148 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 5/2/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 5/15/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 5/30/08

Settlement Conference Date:

None

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 8/11/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 9/9/08 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-6 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

November 29, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Herrick Law Offices by Michael Herrick, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Plaintiff.

Gianelli & Associates by Brett L. Dickerson, Esq., appeared

on behalf of Defendant. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-01148-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 10
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff, Sohan Singh Braich, filed this case on

August 8, 2007. Defendant, Lakha Corporation, Inc. (“Lakha” or

“Defendant”) filed a timely answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on

September 20, 2007. Plaintiff asserts five causes of action in

his complaint: (1) non-payment of overtime wages under California

law (California Labor Code § 1194.2); (2) non-payment of overtime

wages under Federal law (Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.

§ 201 et seq.); (3) restitution of unpaid overtime wages in

violation of California’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (Cal. Bus. &

Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.); (4) a claim for civil penalties

under Cal. Labor Code § 558; and (5) a claim for waiting time

penalties under Cal. Labor Code § 203, all related to his

employment with Defendant.

2. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from April 9, 2005,

to February 24, 2007, initially as a cashier in its retail quick

service station. Plaintiff claims that he was a “non-exempt”

employee and was not compensated for all hours worked. Plaintiff

claims that he worked in excess of 8 hours per day and in excess

of 40 hours per week without receiving one and one-half or double

his regular rate of pay. Defendant disputes these claims and

asserts that Plaintiff was paid all wages due in a timely manner.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not contemplate filing any amendments to

the pleadings at this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

Case 1:07-cv-01148-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 10
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

1. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant April 9, 2005,

to February 24, 2007. 

2. Plaintiff was initially employed as a cashier in

the retail quick service station. 

3. Defendant Lakha Corporation, Inc., dba AM PM Arco,

is a California corporation doing business in the Eastern

District of California at all times alleged. 

B. Contested Facts.

Plaintiff’s

1. Is the Defendant employer able to prove that the

actual work performed by the Plaintiff allowed the employer to

treat the Plaintiff as “exempt” employee from the requirement to

pay overtime for work performed in excess of forty hours a week

under both state and federal law? 

2. What, if any, were the actual hours Plaintiff

worked in excess of forty hours a week?

3. If Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours a

week, how much overtime is owed?

4. Can the Defendant prove a “good faith” exemption

from liquidated damages under the FLSA for any overtime not paid

under the Act?

5. Is the Defendant able to prove that the Plaintiff

is not entitled to “waiting time penalties” under California

Labor Code § 203?

Defendant’s

6. Whether Plaintiff was exempt from the payment of

overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California

Labor Code and the applicable Orders of the Industrial Welfare

Case 1:07-cv-01148-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/30/07 Page 3 of 10
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

Commission.

7. Whether Plaintiff worked any hours in excess of

eight in a given workday and was not compensated at the

appropriate overtime rate for such work.

8. Whether Plaintiff worked any hours in excess of 40

in any given work week and was not compensated at the appropriate

overtime rate for such work.

9. Whether Plaintiff was not fully compensated for

any work performed.

10. Whether Plaintiff complied with his obligations

under California Labor Code §§ 2854 and 2856.

11. Whether Plaintiff unreasonably failed to give

notice of any alleged violations of State or Federal wage law. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the

Fair Labor Standards Act. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1392.

3. As to supplemental claims, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

B. Contested. 

Plaintiff’s

1. Is the Plaintiff “exempt” under California law?

2. Is the Plaintiff “exempt” under the Fair Labor

Standards Act?

3. If the Plaintiff was classified as “exempt,” is

his exempt status lost to the Defendant employer by the Plaintiff

Case 1:07-cv-01148-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/30/07 Page 4 of 10
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

being required to perform excessive “non-exempt” duties pursuant

to the prohibitions in the CFRs and the Wage Orders?

4. Is Plaintiff due “overtime” remedies against

Defendant?

5. Did Defendant violate California Labor Code

§§ 510, 1194, 1173, 558, and 203?

6. Did Defendant violate the Fair Labor Standards

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.?

7. Can the Defendant prove an affirmative defense of

“good faith” to avoid liquidated damages for any unpaid overtime

under § 216(b) of FLSA?

8. Is the Defendant liable to pay Plaintiff “waiting

time penalties” pursuant to Labor Code § 203, for failure to pay

Plaintiff all his wages at the termination of his employment.

VII. Alternative Dispute Resolution.

1. The parties have agreed to proceed with voluntary

dispute resolution and the parties will be referred to Magistrate

Judge Beck upon completion of this Order. 

VIII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

IX. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

Case 1:07-cv-01148-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/30/07 Page 5 of 10
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

6

information. 

X. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties will make their initial disclosures on or

before December 1, 2007. 

2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before May 2, 2008.

3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before March 3, 2008. Any

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before April 3, 2008. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

4. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

XI. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before May 15, 2008, and

heard on June 16, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

Case 1:07-cv-01148-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/30/07 Page 6 of 10
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

7

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than May 30, 2008, and will be heard on July 7,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling

such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230. 

XII. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. August 11, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XIII. Trial Date.

1. September 9, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 3-6 days.

Case 1:07-cv-01148-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/30/07 Page 7 of 10
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

8

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIV. Settlement Conference.

1. No Settlement Conference is scheduled at this time. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

Case 1:07-cv-01148-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/30/07 Page 8 of 10
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

9

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XVI. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVII. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

Case 1:07-cv-01148-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/30/07 Page 9 of 10
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

10

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVIII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01148-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/30/07 Page 10 of 10