Joint Case Management Statement

Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page1 of 14
1 MOIRA C. McQUAID, Bar No. 154232

LAW OFFICES OF MOIRA C. MCQUAID
2 830 Burlway Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
3 Telephone: 650.359.2545
Facsimile: 650.359.2533
4
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5 ASHANKA STAGG, DAMIAN SEQUOIA,
LUCIAN BALMER, SUNDARI MICHAELIAN
6
GARRY G. MATHIASON, Bar No. 051119
7 MICHAEL F. MCCABE, Bar No. 111151
APRIL N. LOVE, Bar No. 255527
8 LITTLER MENDELSON
A Professional Corporation
9 650 California Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
10 Telephone: 415.433.1940
Facsimile: 415.399.8490
11 Email: mmccabe@littler.com
alove@littler.com
12
Attorneys for Defendants
13 SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY, INC. and SRI
CHINMOY CENTRE
14
JAMES T. DIAMOND, JR., Bar No. 131525
15 XOCHITL CARRION, Bar No. 252733
GOLDFARB & LIPMAN
16 1300 Clay Street, Ninth Floor
City Center Plaza
17 Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: 510.836.6336
18 Facsimile: 510.836.1035
Email: jdiamond@goldfarblipman.com
19
Attorneys for Defendants
20 ANANDA FUARA RESTAURANT, GARIMA,
INC. and GARIMA HOFFMAN
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 ASHANKA STAGG, DAMIAN SEQUOIA, Case No. CV 10-02768 JSW
LUCIAN BALMER and SUNDARI
4 MICHAELIAN, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED]
5 Plaintiffs, ORDER
6 v. Date: October 22, 2010
Time: 1:30 pm
7 ANANDA FUARA RESTAURANT; an entity, Courtroom: 11, 19th Floor
form unknown; GARIMA, INC., a corporation; Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
8 GARIMA HOFFMANN, an individual; SRI
CHINMOY SOCIETY, INC., a corporation; SRI
9 CHINMOY CENTRE, an entity, form unknown;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
10
Defendants.
11
12
13 Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in accordance with the
14 Standing Order for All Judges in the Northern District of California, the parties in this matter hereby
15 submit this Joint Case Management Statement.
16 1. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE
17 The basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims is federal question
18 jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)).
19 There are no parties that remain to be served except to the extent that Plaintiffs identify DOE
20 defendants.
21 2. FACTS
22 (a) Plaintiffs’ Chronology of the Facts
23 Plaintiffs Ashanka Stagg, Damian Sequoia, Lucian Balmer and Sundari Michaelian
24 worked a collective 62 years at Defendants’ vegetarian Ananda Fuara Restaurant in San Francisco.
25 Two of the four Plaintiffs are over 60, one is in her late 50s and one is in his 20s. Plaintiffs worked
26 in the restaurant in various capacities either as servers, bakers, dish washers, or preparers of food.
27
28
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
415. 433. 1940
1 Besides working at the Ananda Fuara Restaurant, Plaintiffs also were followers of the
2 teachings of Chinmoy Kumar Ghose and members of a spiritual group called the Sri Chinmoy
3 Centre, a named defendant in this action. Each of the Plaintiffs was assigned by Ghose to work at
4 his enterprise business, the Ananda Fuara Restaurant. The Plaintiffs were promised by Defendants
5 that they would have a job at the restaurant as long as they wanted to work.
6 While working for Defendants, Plaintiffs also observed Defendants’ practice of
7 continuing to pay former employees when they became too old or infirm to continue working.
8 Plaintiffs had the expectation that Defendants would likewise continue to pay them when they
9 became too old or infirm to continue working. In agreeing to work for Defendants under these
10 conditions, each of the Plaintiffs gave up opportunities to pursue other gainful employment.
11 During their 62 collective years of employment at the Ananda Fuara Restaurant,
12 Plaintiffs each received from Defendants a fixed weekly stipend that never amounted to more than
13 $150.00 per week. The stipends bore no relationship to the actual number of hours each Plaintiff
14 worked. As a result, Plaintiffs were not paid minimum wages or overtime wages in conformity with
15 the rates set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the California Labor Code, the San
16 Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance or Wage Order 5-2001. The Plaintiffs also were required by
17 Defendants to relinquish the tips they collected from the customers of the restaurant and give the tip
18 money to Defendants.
19 Between November 6, 2009 and January 23, 2010, each of the Plaintiffs was
20 terminated from employment by Defendants because the Plaintiffs discussed allegations that
21 appeared on the Internet that Ghose had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with several female
22 members of the Sri Chinmoy Centre. Some of the allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct
23 against Ghose came from a female former Ananda Fuara Restaurant employee, who was known to
24 the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that their termination under these circumstances violated Labor Code
25 § 232.5, which protects employees who disclose information about the conditions at their work.
26 Since their termination, the Plaintiffs have not succeeded in obtaining full-time
27 alternate employment and continue to accrue damages.
28 //
415. 433. 1940
1 (b) Defendants’ Chronology of the Facts
2 1. Defendants Ananda Fuara Restaurant and Garima Hoffman.
3 Ms. Hoffmann owns and operates the Ananda Fuara Restaurant (the "Restaurant") in
4 San Francisco, and operates the Restaurant as a dba. As addressed in the Restaurant's web site, the
5 Restaurant is a Sri Chinmoy divine enterprise that specializes in vegetarian and vegan cuisine. The
6 Restaurant is neither funded by nor operated by the Sri Chinmoy church.
7 Plaintiffs were for the most part long-term employees at the Restaurant. None of the
8 employees at the Restaurant had an oral or written contract of employment. Plaintiffs were
9 compensated in cash payments, food, travel reimbursements, other expense reimbursements, and
10 payment of some medical expenses. They also shared in the tip pool.
11 Plaintiff Stagg's employment was terminated; although there was no contract for
12 employment, her employment was terminated with good cause, for legitimate, non-pretextual
13 business reasons. The other three plaintiffs resigned their employment voluntarily; two of these
14 plaintiffs received $1000 in severance pay. The Restaurant and Hoffman deny that Plaintiff Stagg
15 was terminated for improper reasons, and deny that they have violated California Labor Code §
16 232.5 as to Plaintiff Stagg or the other three Plaintiffs.
17 Plaintiffs received tips while working at the Restaurant. Although tips were pooled at
18 the Restaurant, management did not share in the proceeds of the tipping pool.
19 2. Defendants Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society.

20 Defendant Sri Chinmoy Centre Church (“Sri Chinmoy Centre”) is a non-profit
21 corporation incorporated in 1970 pursuant to the Religious Corporation Law of the State of New
22 York, with its principal place of worship located in Jamaica, New York. The purpose of the Sri
23 Chinmoy Centre is to offer its members a path for achieving oneness with God consonant with the
24 teaching of Sri Chinmoy Kumar Ghose, who died October 11, 2007. Sri Chinmoy Centre is exempt
25 from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Sri Chinmoy Centre
26 currently has no employees and to date has only had one employee: Sri Chinmoy Kumar Ghose
27 from 2005 until his passing in 2007.
28
415. 433. 1940
1 Defendant Sri Chinmoy Society, Inc. (“Sri Chinmoy Society”) is a not for profit
2 corporation that was formed in April 2003 under New York’s Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. Sri
3 Chinmoy Society, operating under the assumed name “Vasudeva Server”, ran and operated web-
4 hosting and email services as well as Wi-Fi Nodes. After the passing of Sri Chinmoy, all intellectual
5 property of Sri Chinmoy Society was transferred to Sri Chinmoy Centre. Vasudeva Server currently
6 is maintained as a project by Sri Chinmoy Centre and hosts and administers Sri Chinmoy Centre
7 related websites and email services. Sri Chinmoy Society has no current operations and has never
8 had any connection to Plaintiffs herein.
9 Although Plaintiffs have been members of Sri Chinmoy Centre, their membership is
10 independent of any employment relationship with Defendant Ananda Fuara Restaurant (“Ananda
11 Fuara”). Sri Chinmoy Centre is informed and believes that Defendant Garima Hoffman is the sole
12 owner of Ananda Fuara. Neither Sri Chinmoy Centre nor Sri Chinmoy Society have had or
13 exercised any control over the day to day operations of Ananda Fuara nor have they ever had any
14 ownership interest in Ananda Fuara.
15 Neither Sri Chinmoy Centre nor Sri Chinmoy Society have information regarding the
16 day to day operation of Ananda Fuara, including but not limited to, the hours and working conditions
17 of Plaintiffs.
18 (c) Plaintiffs’ and Defendants Ananda Fuara Restaurant's and Garima Hoffman's
19 Statement of the Principal Factual Issues in Dispute

20 (1) Whether there was a valid oral, implied and written employment agreement
21 between Defendants and Plaintiffs.
22 (2) Whether Defendants made promises to Plaintiffs about employment by
23 Defendants.
24 (3) Whether Defendants terminated Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs disclosed
25 information about their working conditions.
26 (4) Whether Plaintiffs were paid minimum wages for all hours they worked and
27 the number of hours that they worked.
28
415. 433. 1940
1 (5) Whether Plaintiffs worked more than eight (8) hours in a single workday or
2 forty (40) hours in a single workweek and/or worked hours on the seventh (7th) consecutive day of
3 the workweek, and if so, how many hours they worked.
4 (6) Whether there was a tip pooling agreement to distribute tips collected from
5 defendants’ customers to defendants’ restaurant employees.
6 (7) Whether Plaintiffs missed rest breaks and if so, how many.
7 (8) Whether Plaintiffs failed to receive wage statements.
8 (9) Whether any failure to pay Plaintiffs all wages due at the time of their
9 termination from employment was willful.
10 (10) The amount of Plaintiffs’ damages.
11 (d) Defendants’ Sri Chinmoy Centre's and Sri Chinmoy Society's Statement of the
12 Principal Factual Issues In Dispute
13 (1) Whether Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society had any employment
14 relationship with Plaintiffs..
15 (2) Whether Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society exercised any control
16 over the day to day operations of Ananda Fuara Restaurant, including but not limited to wages, hours
17 and working conditions..
18 (3) Whether Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society took any adverse
19 employment action with regard to Plaintiffs' employment at Ananda Fuara Restaurant.

20 3. LEGAL ISSUES
21 (a) Plaintiffs’ Statement of Legal Issues
22 (1) Whether Defendants were joint employers and therefore have joint liability to
23 Plaintiffs under the standards set forth in Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 and by the
24 Department of Labor, 29 C.F.R. § 791 et seq.
25 (2) Whether Defendants breached the terms of the oral, implied and written
26 employment agreement between Defendants and Plaintiffs.
27 (3) Whether Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the promises made to them by
28 Defendants such that Defendants are estopped from denying those promises.
415. 433. 1940
1 (4) Whether Defendants terminated Plaintiffs in violation of Labor Code § 232.5
2 because Plaintiffs disclosed information about their working conditions.
3 (5) Whether Defendants’ payment of wages to Plaintiffs for hours worked
4 violated Labor Code §§ 201, 203, 351, 226, 226.7, 510, 1194, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197-1199, 2698 et
5 seq.; FLSA §§ 206, 207; San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, Chap. 12R, San Francisco
6 Administrative Code; and Wage Order 5-2001, Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 8, § 11020, among other
7 statutes and regulations.
8 (6) Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory penalties under the Labor Code, the
9 FLSA and the San Francisco Minimum Wage Order.
10 (7) Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to penalties under Labor Code § 2698 et seq.
11 (8) Whether Defendants violated California Business and Professions Code §
12 17200 et seq.
13 (9) Whether Defendants converted Plaintiffs’ lawful minimum wages, overtime
14 wages, tips and compensation as part of an intentional and deliberate scheme to maximize profits at
15 the expense of Plaintiffs.
16 (b) Defendants’ Statement of Legal Issues
17 (1) Defendants Ananda Fuara Restaurant and Garima Hoffman
18 (a) Whether Plaintiffs' Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be
19 granted as to the Restaurant or Hoffmann.

20 (b) Whether, and if so to what extent, Plaintiffs are barred from recovery,
21 or whether any recovery by Plaintiffs must be reduced by their failure to mitigate any alleged
22 damages.
23 (c) Whether, and if so to what extent, Plaintiffs' recovery is barred by
24 applicable statutes of limitations and/or laches.
25 (d) Whether, and if so to what extent, Plaintiffs' claims premised on
26 actions taken by Defendants Restaurant and Hoffmann with respect to matters of religion are
27 protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and equivalent state law protections.
28
415. 433. 1940
1 (e) Whether, and if so to what extent, Plaintiffs' claims, recovery, and/or
2 damages are barred under any or all of the affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants Ananda
3 Fuara and Hoffmann in their answer to the Complaint.
4 (f) Whether Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to form a
5 basis for punitive damages, and whether punitive damages are recoverable under the California and
6 U.S. Constitutions.
7 (2) Defendants Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society
8 (a) Whether Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society are or were
9 joint-employers of Plaintiffs.
10 (b) Whether any action undertaken by the Board of Trustees of Sri
11 Chinmoy Centre in furtherance of its spiritual mission can be considered evidence of an employment
12 relationship with its members.
13 (c) Whether the First Amendment protects Sri Chinmoy Centre from
14 liability as a joint-employer of Plaintiffs for any action undertaken in furtherance of it spiritual
15 mission.
16 (d) Whether any alleged statement attributed to Sri Chinmoy Kumar
17 Ghose in furtherance of his spiritual mission are binding on Sri Chinmoy Centre in connection with
18 an analysis of Sri Chinmoy Centre’s status as a joint-employer of Plaintiffs.
19 (e) The legal significance of any action or inaction taken by defendant

20 Garima Hoffman in her role as owner of defendant Ananda Fuara Restaurant and her status as a
21 member of the Board of Trustees of Sri Chinmoy Centre.
22 (f) The legal significance of any action or inaction taken by defendant
23 Garima Hoffman in her role as a member and trustee of Sri Chinmoy Centre and her status as owner
24 of defendant Ananda Fuara Restaurant.
25 4. MOTIONS
26 The parties anticipate the filing of the following motions:
27 (1) Plaintiffs may file a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment depending on the
28 evidence obtained.
415. 433. 1940
1 (2) Defendants Sri Chinmoy Society, Inc. and Sri Chinmoy Centre anticipate
2 filing a Motion for Summary Judgment.
3 (3) Defendants Ananda Fuara Restaurant and Garima Hoffman anticipate filing a
4 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment.
5 The parties stipulate to extend the deadline set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-2(a) to
6 provide that any party filing a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Motion for Summary
7 Judgment will file the motion at least 42 days before the hearing date.
8 5. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
9 The parties do not presently anticipate the need to amend the pleadings. Prior to the
10 preparation of this Joint Case Management Conference Statement, Plaintiffs amended the Complaint
11 to add a cause of action under Labor Code § 2699 et seq. after administratively exhausting with the
12 Labor Workforce and Development Agency. Plaintiffs also dismissed without prejudice defendant
13 Garima, Inc.
14 6. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
15 The parties represent that reasonable steps have been taken to preserve evidence relevant to
16 the issues in this case, including the taking of steps to prevent the loss or destruction of potentially
17 relevant evidence. At this early stage, the parties do not anticipate discovery issues regarding
18 electronic documents and/or protected material. The parties agree to meet and confer as such
19 discovery issues may arise.

20 7. DISCLOSURES
21 The parties have agreed to serve their respective initial disclosures by email, personal
22 delivery or overnight delivery by October 29, 2010.
23 8. DISCOVERY
24 The parties have not taken any discovery to date. In addition to the exchange of initial
25 disclosures, the parties anticipate completing written discovery, document productions and
26 depositions.
27 Discovery is anticipated on the following subjects: (1) Whether Defendants Sri Chinmoy
28 Society, Inc. and Sri Chinmoy Centre were joint employers with Defendants Ananda Fuara
415. 433. 1940
1 Restaurant and Garima Hoffman; (2) the terms under which Plaintiffs were employed by
2 Defendants; (3) whether Defendants made promises to Plaintiffs about employment by Defendants;
3 (4) the reasons for Defendants’ termination of Plaintiffs’ employment; (5) the number of hours
4 Plaintiffs worked for Defendants and the amount of compensation they received for that work; (6)
5 the amount of payroll taxes withheld and paid by Defendants on Plaintiffs’ behalf; (7) the amount of
6 tips collected each day by Defendants and distributed to their employees; (8) the amount of tips paid
7 by Defendants to Plaintiffs; (9) whether Plaintiffs missed rest breaks and if so, how many; (10)
8 whether Plaintiffs failed to receive wage statements; (11) whether any failure to pay Plaintiffs all
9 wages due at the time of their termination from employment was willful; (12) the allegations set
10 forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and First Amended Complaint and Defendants’ defenses; and (13)
11 liability and damages.
12 All non expert discovery should be completed by July 8, 2011. All expert discovery should
13 be completed by August 26, 2011. The parties agree that discovery should not be conducted in
14 phases and should not be limited or focused upon any particular issue. The parties agree that no
15 changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed by the FRCP, with the exception of
16 FRCP 30. The parties stipulate that the provisions of FRCP 30(d)(2), which limit the length of a
17 deposition to one day of seven hours, will not apply with respect to the depositions of Plaintiffs
18 Ashanka Stagg, Damian Sequoia, Lucian Balmer, Sundari Michaelian and Defendant Garima
19 Hoffman and Ashrita Furman, Treasurer and a Trustee of Sri Chinmoy Centre. Instead, each
20 Plaintiff will be deposed for two days, seven hours each day, over the course of two consecutive
21 business days, to enable each of Defendants’ lawyers to spend one day of seven hours deposing each
22 Plaintiff. Plaintiffs will depose Garima Hoffman and Ashrita Furman for two days, seven hours each
23 day, over the course of two consecutive business days. The parties agree to participate in initial
24 written discovery prior to taking depositions.
25 9. CLASS ACTION
26 This is not a class action.
27 //
28 //
415. 433. 1940
1 10. RELATED CASES
2 There are no related cases or proceedings pending before another Judge of this Court or
3 before another Court or administrative body.
4 11. RELIEF
5 Plaintiffs:
6 Without the benefit of discovery or wage statements, plaintiffs are currently preparing
7 preliminary calculations of the unpaid wages, misappropriated tips, and lost earnings they claim for
8 the period prior to their terminations from employment. These calculations will be ready in time to
9 be included in plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures. The category of damages which plaintiffs will be
10 seeking include the following:
11 1. Damages for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 1194,
12 1194.2, 1197, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206, the San Francisco Minimum
13 Wage Ordinance, Chap. 12 R, San Francisco Administrative Code and Wage Order 5-2001, Cal.
14 Code Regs, Tit. 8, § 11020;
15 2. Damages for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 510,
16 1194(a), 1198, 1199, FLSA § 207, the San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, Chap. 12 R, San
17 Francisco Administrative Code and Wage Order 5-2001, Cal. Code Regs, Tit. 8, § 11020;
18 3. One (1) hour of premium pay for each workday in which a rest period was not
19 provided as required by law in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7;

20 4. Liquidated damages available under the California Labor Code, the FLSA and the
21 San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance;
22 5. All applicable statutory penalties available under the California Labor Code;
23 6. All applicable civil penalties for violations as enumerated under the California Labor
24 Code in Labor Code § 2698 et seq.;
25 7. Restitutionary disgorgement of wages and tips and injunctive relief for violation of
26 the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.;
27 8. Future wage loss, emotional distress damages and punitive damages;
28 9. Pre-judgment interest accruing at the maximum amount allowed by law;

415. 433. 1940
1 10. Attorneys’ fees and cost.
2 12. SETTLEMENT AND ADR
3 The parties agree to participate in mediation after initial discovery has taken place.
4 13. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES
5 Defendants are not willing to consent to have a Magistrate Judge conduct all further
6 proceedings in this matter and have so indicated by filing a Declination to Proceed Before
7 Magistrate Judge with the Court.
8 14. OTHER REFERENCES
9 The parties agree that this case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration or any other
10 reference.
11 15. NARROWING OF ISSUES
12 The parties believe that a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment may narrow issues.
13 16. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE
14 The parties do not believe that this is the type of case that can be handled on an expedited
15 basis with streamlined procedures.
16 17. SCHEDULING
17 The parties submit the following schedule to this Court in relation to discovery, motions,
18 designation of experts, and pretrial conference and trial:
19 Amendment of Pleadings Cutoff (Plaintiffs’ Proposal): June 1, 2011

20 Amendment of Pleadings Cutoff (Defendants’ Proposal): January 7, 2011
21 Non Expert Discovery Cutoff: July 8, 2011
22 Expert Disclosures (Initial): July 18, 2011
23 Expert Disclosures (Rebuttal): August 1, 2011
24 Dispositive Motion Hearing Cutoff: August 5, 2011
25 Expert Discovery Cut Off: August 26, 2011
26 Final Pre trial Conference: September 19, 2011
27 Trial: September 26, 2011
28 //
415. 433. 1940
1 18. TRIAL
2 Plaintiffs have requested a jury trial. The expected length of trial is 10 court days.
3 19. DISCLOSURE OF NON PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
4 All parties have filed the “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” required by Civil
5 Local Rule 3-16, and have indicated that there are no non-party interests to report.
6 20. OTHER MATTERS
7 The parties are amenable to discussing with one another, and with the Court, any other
8 matters that may facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this matter.
9 Dated: October 15, 2010

10
11 ________________/s/_____________________
Moira C. McQuaid
12 LAW OFFICES OF MOIRA C. MCQUAID
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13 ASHANKA STAGG, DAMIAN SEQUOIA,
LUCIAN BALMER and SUNDARI
14 MICHAELIAN
Dated: October 15, 2010
15
16
________________/s/____________________
17 James Diamond
GOLDFARB LIPMAN
18 Attorneys for Defendants
ANANDA FUARA RESTAURANT, GARIMA,
19 INC. AND GARIMA HOFFMAN
20 Dated: October 15, 2010
21
22 _______________/s/_____________________
Michael F. McCabe
23 LITTLER MENDELSON
24 Attorneys for Defendants
SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY, INC. and
25 SRI CHINMOY CENTRE
26
27 Firmwide:98090855.1 065769.1001
28
415. 433. 1940
1 ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
3 I, Michael F. McCabe, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
4 Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order. In compliance with General Order 45,
5 X.B., I hereby attest that Moira McQuaid, Esq., and James Diamond have read and approved this
6 Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order and consent to its filing in this action.
8 DATED: October 15, 2010 ______________/s/_____________________

Michael F. McCabe
9 LITTLER MENDELSON
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
415. 433. 1940

Joint Case Management Statement

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Joint Case Management Statement

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page1 of 14

1 MOIRA C. McQUAID, Bar No. 154232

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 While working for Defendants, Plaintiffs also observed Defendants’ practice of

11 During their 62 collective years of employment at the Ananda Fuara Restaurant,

27 alternate employment and continue to accrue damages.

1 (b) Defendants’ Chronology of the Facts

2 1. Defendants Ananda Fuara Restaurant and Garima Hoffman.

6 Restaurant is neither funded by nor operated by the Sri Chinmoy church.

16 232.5 as to Plaintiff Stagg or the other three Plaintiffs.

19 2. Defendants Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society.

27 from 2005 until his passing in 2007.

8 had any connection to Plaintiffs herein.

14 ownership interest in Ananda Fuara.

19 Statement of the Principal Factual Issues in Dispute

21 between Defendants and Plaintiffs.

22 (2) Whether Defendants made promises to Plaintiffs about employment by

24 (3) Whether Defendants terminated Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs disclosed

25 information about their working conditions.

27 the number of hours that they worked.

3 the workweek, and if so, how many hours they worked.

5 defendants’ customers to defendants’ restaurant employees.

7 (8) Whether Plaintiffs failed to receive wage statements.

9 termination from employment was willful.

10 (10) The amount of Plaintiffs’ damages.

12 Principal Factual Issues In Dispute

14 relationship with Plaintiffs..

17 and working conditions..

19 employment action with regard to Plaintiffs' employment at Ananda Fuara Restaurant.

21 (a) Plaintiffs’ Statement of Legal Issues

24 Department of Labor, 29 C.F.R. § 791 et seq.

26 employment agreement between Defendants and Plaintiffs.

27 (3) Whether Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the promises made to them by

1 (4) Whether Defendants terminated Plaintiffs in violation of Labor Code § 232.5

2 because Plaintiffs disclosed information about their working conditions.

3 (5) Whether Defendants’ payment of wages to Plaintiffs for hours worked

7 statutes and regulations.

9 FLSA and the San Francisco Minimum Wage Order.

11 (8) Whether Defendants violated California Business and Professions Code §

13 (9) Whether Defendants converted Plaintiffs’ lawful minimum wages, overtime

15 the expense of Plaintiffs.

16 (b) Defendants’ Statement of Legal Issues

17 (1) Defendants Ananda Fuara Restaurant and Garima Hoffman

19 granted as to the Restaurant or Hoffmann.

23 (c) Whether, and if so to what extent, Plaintiffs' recovery is barred by

24 applicable statutes of limitations and/or laches.

25 (d) Whether, and if so to what extent, Plaintiffs' claims premised on

1 (e) Whether, and if so to what extent, Plaintiffs' claims, recovery, and/or

3 Fuara and Hoffmann in their answer to the Complaint.

4 (f) Whether Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to form a

7 (2) Defendants Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society

10 (b) Whether any action undertaken by the Board of Trustees of Sri

12 relationship with its members.

14 liability as a joint-employer of Plaintiffs for any action undertaken in furtherance of it spiritual

16 (d) Whether any alleged statement attributed to Sri Chinmoy Kumar

18 an analysis of Sri Chinmoy Centre’s status as a joint-employer of Plaintiffs.

19 (e) The legal significance of any action or inaction taken by defendant

21 member of the Board of Trustees of Sri Chinmoy Centre.

22 (f) The legal significance of any action or inaction taken by defendant

24 of defendant Ananda Fuara Restaurant.

26 The parties anticipate the filing of the following motions:

2 filing a Motion for Summary Judgment.

4 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment.

19 discovery issues may arise.

8 DATED: October 15, 2010 /s/_______