Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Complex Case Management Order - 1
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
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Coordination Proceedings Special Title (Rule 3.550)
LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES WAGE AND HOUR CASES,
Included Actions:
Macias v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Toledo v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc.,
)))))))))))))))))_)
JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING No. 4750
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDENo. RIC120510
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARANo. 1265755
COMPLEX CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
ASSIGNED JUDGE: Hon. Donna D. GeckDEPARTMENT: FourHEARING DATE: December 20, 2013TIME: 1:30 pm
On August 20, 2008 the Court designated this matter as complex litigation under the
California Standards of Judicial Administration. On March 13, 2013, Macias v. Little Caesar
Enterprises, Inc. et. al., Superior Court of California, Riverside, Case No. RIC 1210510, and
Toledo v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara,
Case No. 1265755, were coordinated by this Court and designated as complex litigation under
the California Standards of Judicial Administration.
The purpose of this order is to establish a case management plan for this complex
litigation in order to avoid inconsistent or duplicative rulings, reduce the costs of litigation, assist
Complex Case Management Order - 2
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
the parties in resolving their disputes and reduce the costs and difficulties of discovery and trial.
This complex case management order supersedes all prior complex case management orders in
this case.
On any matter about which this order is silent, the Code of Civil Procedure, other
statutes, the California Rules of Court, and the local rules of this Court shall be controlling.
On December 20, 2013, a complex case management conference was conducted in
this matter. An unofficial copy of this Order may be posted on the Court’s web page at
http://www.sbcourts.org/general_info/judicial_officers/dgeck/ as a convenience to Court and
counsel, but the filed order entered by the Court is the only operative order. The parties
stipulate and agree that the e-mail by the Court to the e-mail address provided by counsel
is equivalent to service as of the date of the e-mail and further notice of this Order is
waived.
The Court considered at the conference, pursuant to Appendix to California Rules of
Court, Div I, section 19(e) (Initial Case Management Conference, Complex Litigation), and Rule
212(i) of the California Rules of Court (Case Management Conference, Generally), the following
subjects, and makes the following orders:
1. SEVERANCE, CONSOLIDATION OR COORDINATION (App. to CRC, Div I,
§19(e)(2))
2. STATUS OF THE PARTIES AND PLEADINGS
2.1. Current Status
On May 4, 2010 Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., filed Notice of Removal
of Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1265755 to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, with District Court Case No.: 2:10-cv-03343-JFW-SH. The Santa
Barbara Court received notice of removal on May 5, 2010. At the May 5, 2010 Complex Case
Management Conference, this Court vacated the then scheduled June 23, 2010 Complex Case
Management Conference and set this case for a Case Management Conference on January 12,
2011 at 8:30 AM in Santa Barbara Superior Court Department Four (Anacapa). The Court also
Complex Case Management Order - 3
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
issued a May 5, 2010 Order After Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Approving
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Pending Certified Class Action, and then took that motion off calendar
because of Defendant’s removal of the matter to federal court.
On June 23, 2010 the United States District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for
remand to the Santa Barbara Court. On July 6, 2010 Defendant Little Caesar filed with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit its petition for permission to appeal, with
Case No. 10-80137. On August 27, 2010 the Ninth Circuit denied the Little Ceasars petition. The
Santa Barbara Court then restored the case to its Court’s Complex Case Management track.
Defendant filed a demurrer regarding Plaintiff Jonathan Macias’ First Amended
Complaint, to be heard at the July 12, 2013 Complex Case Management Conference.
Defendant’s Demurrer was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff Jonathan Macias subsequently
filed a Second and Third Amended Complaint. Defendant filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike
regarding Plaintiff Jonathan Macias’ Third Amended Complaint to be heard at the December 20,
2031 Complex Case Management Conference. Defendant also has served a Section 128.7
motion which it will withdraw.
3. COUNSEL
3.1. Master Counsel List
The master list of counsel, their e-mail addresses and the parties is: (App. to CRC,
Div I, §19(e)(11)):NAME E-MAIL ADDRESS PARTYCesar Nava [email protected] SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR
MORALES, and ROCKY TEI and the Class
Santos Gomez [email protected] SameStan Hodson [email protected] SameStanley Saltzman [email protected] SameMarcus Bradley [email protected] SameKiley Grombacher [email protected] SameMaria Rodriguez
[email protected] CEASAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
Ben Gipson [email protected] LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.Raul Perez [email protected] Jonathan MaciasAlexandria Witte [email protected] Jonathan MaciasArnab Banerjee [email protected] Jonathan Macias
Complex Case Management Order - 4
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
[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected]
3.2. Liaison Counsel
3.3. Liaison Groups
3.4. Pro Hac Vice Admission of Counsel
3.5. Trial Counsel
The names and addresses of the attorneys who will try the case are (CRC, Rule
212(i)(9)): COUNSEL E-MAIL ADDRESS PARTY
Cesar Nava [email protected] SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, and ROCKY TEI and the Class
Santos Gomez [email protected] SameStan Hodson [email protected] SameStanley Saltzman [email protected] SameMarcus Bradley [email protected] SameMaria Rodriguez [email protected] Little Caesar Enterprises, IncBen Gipson [email protected] Little Caesar Enterprises, IncRaul Perez [email protected] Jonathan MaciasAlexandria Witte [email protected] Jonathan MaciasArnab Banerjee [email protected] Jonathan Macias
4. MOTIONS
4.1. Preliminary Legal Question Schedule
4.2 Class Certification Motion
04-13-10 Motion Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Approving Plaintiffs Notice of Pending Certified Class Action With Supporting Declaration of Stanley J Hodson Hrg 5/05/10 3:00pm Dept 4, Filed by Plaintiffs09-15-10 Notice of Hearing on Plaintiffs April 13 2010 Filed Motion for an Order Approving Plaintiffs Notice of Pending Certified Class Action With Supporting Declaration of Stanley J Hodson Hrg 10/13/10 9:30am Dept 4, Filed by Plaintiffs
Moving Parties Responding Party
Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI
LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
Responding Party Hearing Submitted Disposition
Complex Case Management Order - 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
LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
12/15/2010The court grants, in part, the motion of plaintiffs Susana Toledo, Oscar Morales and Rocky Tei to approve their proposed notice of pending certified class action and orders as follows:Notice to class members is necessary.The class members may exclude themselves from the class.The class members shall be notified by first class mail.The content of the notice attached to the motion as Exhibit “F” is approved with the following changes:In ¶ 7 of the notice, plaintiffs shall add: “If you remain a member of the class, you may enter an appearance in the action through counsel.”In ¶ 8, the date selected shall be 60 days from the transmission date of the Notice.Plaintiffs shall bear the cost of notifying the class. However, defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. shall bear the cost of gathering and distributing a class list of current and former managers and non-managerial employees, dividing them into subclasses and providing their last known contact information.Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. may not urge, either explicitly or implicitly, any class member, whether a former or current employee, to opt-out from participating in this Class Action.The court approves Simpluris, Inc. as class administrator.The court intends to add an order regarding the timing of the notice to class members. The parties shall appear at the December 15, 2010 hearing to discuss the timing of the notice.
Complex Case Management Order - 6
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
4.2 Class De-Certification Motion
06-27-12 filed Motion: Defendant’s Notice and Motion for Decertification with Supporting Declarations of Benjamin M. Gipson and Sonya Kwon, Compendium of Evidence, Request for Judicial Notice, Non-California Authorities, and Proposed Order Hrg 8/15/12 1:30pm Dept 4.
07-18-12 Filed Opposition: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Decertification, with supporting Declarations of Stanley J. Hodson and Marcus J. Bradley, and Request for Judicial Notice.
08-01-12 Defendant’s Reply in support of its Motion for Decertification.08-01-12 Supplemental Declaration of Benjamin M. Gipson in support of Defendant’s Reply.08-01-12 Defendant’s Appendix of Non-California Authorities in support of Defendant’s Reply.08-01-12 Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice in support of Defendant’s Reply.
08-08-2012 Class Objections to the Evidence and Case Law that Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (1) Supplemental Declaration, (2) Appendix of Non-California Authorities, and (3) Request for Judicial Notice untimely and improperly submitted with the Reply in support of Defendant’s Decertification Motion.
08-23-12 Defendant’s Notice of New Superior Court Decisions Decertifying Meal and Rest Period Class Action.08-23-12 Declaration of Benjamin M. Gipson in Support of Defendant’s Notice of New Superior Court Decisions Decertifying Meal and Rest Period Class Action.
08-24-12 Class Objections to Defendant’s August 23, 2012 Untimely Filed and Improperly Submitted Notice of New Superior Court Decisions Decertifying Meal and Rest Period Class Action.
09-28-12 Defendant’s Notice of New California Appellate Court Decisions Upholding Denials of Meal and Rest Period Class Actions after Brinker.
10-05-12 Class Objections to Defendant’s September 28, 2012 Untimely Filed Briefing.
Moving Parties Responding Party
LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI, and the Class
Responding Party Hearing Submitted Disposition
Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI, and the Class
08/15/2012
Continued by minute order to 8/29/2012
Continued by Court minute order to 10/10/2012
Continued by Court minute order to 10/17/2012
The Court granted in part, defendant Little Caesar Industries, Inc.’s motion for decertification of this class action. The Court orders that the class of all persons who are employed or have been employed by defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California who within four (4) years of the filing of the complaint herein (January 16, 2008) have worked as hourly restaurant employees, including the sub-class of such hourly restaurant employees with managerial duties, is decertified for purposes of the first, second, third and fourth causes of action in the first amended complaint of plaintiffs Susana Toledo, Oscar Morales and Rocky Tei. The class of all hourly employees remains certified as to the fifth and seventh causes of action, and the sub-class of hourly restaurant employees with managerial duties as to the sixth cause of action.
Complex Case Management Order - 7
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
Plaintiffs filed a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal seeking review of this
Court’s October 19, 2012 Order decertifying Plaintiffs’ meal period claim on December 18,
2012. This was denied by the Appellate Court on February 5, 2013.
Defendant anticipates filing a motion for decertification based on new caselaw
and evidence as to Plaintiffs’ remaining certified claims if current settlement negotiations are
unsuccessful. Defendant requests that the next Complex Case Management Conference be set in
mid to late April 2014 to allow sufficient time to engage in settlement negotiations and allow
Defendant to prepare and file a motion for decertification regarding the Toledo matter to be
heard at that CCMC, if necessary. Should the parties fail to reach a settlement, the Toldeo
Plaintiffs intend to move for reconsideration of this Court’s Order decertifying Plaintiffs’ meal
break claim in light of the Court of Appeals decision in Faulkinbury vs Boyd & Associates Inc.,
(2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 220, as well as several other recent State Court appellate decisions which
have issued orders consistent with that issued in Faulkinbury.
On February 19, this Court was assigned as the coordination judge for this matter
and Macias v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1210510.
Both parties in the Macias matter sought coordination, and Defendant requests that the cases be
coordinated before this Court. Plaintiffs do not oppose coordination provided that the matter
remains venued in this Court. This matter was coordinated and deemed complex on March 13,
2013.
4.3. Demurrers, Motions to Strike and Summary Adjudication Motions (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(7))
Motion: Summary Judgment as to Representative Plaintiff SUSANA TOLEDO
Moving Party Responding Parties LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, & ROCKY TEI
Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI
4/28/20109:30 a.m. Civil law & motion calendar
The Court denied this motion. The Court sustained Little Caesar Enterprise, Inc.’s objections to ¶¶ 14, 20 & 24 in the Toledo declaration.
Complex Case Management Order - 8
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
Motion: Summary Judgment as to Representative Plaintiff OSCAR MORALES
Moving Party Responding Parties LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI
Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI
4/28/20109:30 a.m. Civil law & motion calendar
The Court denied this motion. The Court sustained Little Caesar Enterprise, Inc.’s objections to ¶¶ 14, 20 & 23 in the Morales declaration.
Motion: Summary Judgment as to Representative Plaintiff ROCKY TEI
Moving Party Responding Parties LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI
Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI
4/28/20109:30 a.m. Civil law & motion calendar
The Court denied this motion. The Court sustained Little Caesar Enterprise, Inc.’s objections to ¶¶ 14, 20 & 24 in the Tei declaration.
Moving Party Responding Parties
LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI, and the Class
Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition
SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI, and the Class
08/15/2012
Continued by minute order to 8/29/2012
Continued by Court minute order to 10/10/2012
Continued
The Court denied defendant Little Caesar Industries, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication.
Complex Case Management Order - 9
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
by Court minute order to 10/17/2012
Motion: Demurrer as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS
Moving Party Responding Parties LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
JONATHAN MACIAS
Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition
JONATHAN MACIAS July 12, 20131:30 p.m. Complex Case Management Conference
The Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiff Macias shall file and serve his SAC on or before 7/29/13.
Motion: Demurrer as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Moving Party Responding Parties LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
JONATHAN MACIAS
Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition
JONATHAN MACIAS Taken Off Calendar
Demurrer taken off calendar when Plaintiff agreed to amend Second Amended Complaint.
Motion: Demurrer as to Plaintiff JONATHAN MACIAS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Moving Party Responding Parties LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
JONATHAN MACIAS
Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition
JONATHAN MACIAS December 20, 20131:30 p.m. Complex Case Management Conference
The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. The Fourth Amended Complaint shall be served and filed 1/6/2014. The Motion to Strike is deemed as moot. Defendants to file a responsive pleading within sixteen (16) days thereafter.
Complex Case Management Order - 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
4.2. Discovery Motions
02-04-11 Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Response to TEI's Set 1, 2, 3k and Special Interrogatories 1, 2, & 3. Declaration; HRG 3-2-11 3:00 SB4, Filed by Susana Toledo et al
Moving Party Responding Parties Plaintiffs TOLEDO, MORALES, & TEI
LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition
3/2/2011 3:00 p.m. hearing continued to 3/16/2011 and taken off calendar. .
4.3. Other Motions 11-19-10 Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay All Further Proceedings and Take Judicial Notice; HRG 12-15-10 3:00 PM SB4, Filed by Defendant
Moving Party Responding Parties
LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.
Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI
Responding Parties Hearing Submitted Disposition
Representative Plaintiffs SUSANA TOLEDO, OSCAR MORALES, AND ROCKY TEI
12/15/2010The motion to stay is denied.
4.4. Special Discovery (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(3))
4.4.1. List of Undisputed Facts
4.4.2. Defect List
4.4.3. Required Statements
On or before September 10, 2011 the Toledo parties will agree what, if any, sample
of time cards will be produced and used to determine how often managers took meal periods.
Any such agreed time cards shall be produced by that date.
Complex Case Management Order - 11
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
The Toledo parties have made the following joint progress in identifying the sample
of time cards to be used to determine how often managers took meal periods: for the class period
beginning January 2004 and continuing, the time cards for one two-week pay-period in early
June of each year of the class period and one two-week pay-period in early December of the
class period. To date, Defendant has produced electronic spreadsheet data for the December pay-
periods for 2005 through 2010, and for the June pay-periods for 2008 through 2010.
Arrangements are continuing for production of electronic spreadsheets for the June and
December 2004 pay-periods, and for the 2005 through 2008 June pay-periods. Arrangements are
also continuing for the production of scanned front-and-back images of the time cards that
correspond to each spreadsheet entry.
In April of 2011, Defendant communicated that some of the boxes of timecards may be
missing, and as part of the above timecard sampling the parties have agreed that if for the sample
pay-periods identified here any box of timecards is missing, the Toledo Plaintiffs will select and
the Defendant will produce a substitute box of pay-period timecards for data entry and front-and-
back scanning.
On November 8, 2011 the California Supreme Court heard argument in the Brinker
Restaurant case about California meal period and rest break laws, among other issues. And
because the ruling, due within 90 days, may have a significant bearing on how the parties
continue to pursue the timecard data entry and scanning, the parties have agreed to a stay in the
timecard discovery, with correlative extension(s) of deadlines for moving to compel, to allow for
issuance and review of the Cal. Supreme Court ruling in the Brinker case. The California
Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Brinker case on April 12, 2012.
Plaintiff Jonathan Macias has propounded special interrogatories (set one) seeking, inter
alia, contact information for aggrieved employees. Defendant has responded to the first set of
special interrogatories and the parties are currently meeting and conferring regarding those
responses. Plaintiff has agreed to postpone filing a motion to compel on the first set of special
interrogatories pending a ruling on Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike. Defendant
Complex Case Management Order - 12
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
agreed that if the motions are denied it will produce the contact information requested. Plaintiff
has also propounded Requests for Production of Documents (set one) but the response deadline
has not expired. Little Caesars disagrees with this characterization of the meet and confer
process, and will continue to meet and confer with Plaintiff Macias in good faith regarding the
appropriate contact procedure for any potential aggrieved parties. The time for Plaintiff Macias
to file a Motion to Compel is tolled until the case is at issue.
4.4.4. Inspection and Testing
4.4.5. Expert Information Exchange
4.5. Stages of Discovery
4.5.1. Stage One
4.5.2. Stage Two
4.5.3. Stage Three
4.6. Protective Orders (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(4))
Defendant and Plaintiff Jonathan Macias have agreed on a stipulated protective order
to facilitate the exchange of informal discovery.
Complex Case Management Order - 13
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
4.7. Document Depository (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(9))
4.8. Interrogatories
4.9. Depositions (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(8))
4.10. Discovery Referee (CCP §639(a)(5))
4.10.1. Appointment
4.10.2. Additional Discovery By Leave Of Discovery Referee
5. ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT
6. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND MANDATORY
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(5))
6.1. Alternate Dispute Resolution (CRC, Rule 212(i)(1)-(2))
6.2. Mandatory Settlement Conferences (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(5); CRC,
Rule 212(i)(10))
All parties shall familiarize themselves with the Department Four web page at
http://www.sbcourts.org/general_info/judicial_officers/dgeck/ and the “Department
4:Forms” particularly the “Pre-trial Order” forms and be prepared to provide all information
required by the order at the pre-trial conference on the first day of trial.
7. TRIAL
The Trial date of May 11, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. in this Department was VACATED.
The Toledo Parties request a short stay of the 5 year rule in order to facilitate settlement
discussions in light of the September 11, 2013 mediation scheduled by the Parties. For good
cause, and on the stipulation of the parties, the Court extends the deadline for trial to July 30,
2014, and will consider requests for further extensions.
8. SCHEDULE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES
The Court will conduct further complex case management conferences approximately
every seven (7) weeks on Wednesday afternoons in this department. (CRC, Rule 212(i)(11)-(12);
App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(12)).
In order to reduce file congestion:
Complex Case Management Order - 14
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) No Courtesy copies shall be delivered to the Court;
(2) Where the Court’s orders require only service of a document the parties shall not
also file copies of that document.
All law and motion matters shall be set for hearing at a complex case management
conference. If a matter is not set for a scheduled complex case management conference hearing,
the notice of motion shall contain a certificate by counsel for the moving party why special
setting is required.
On or before the Friday before a scheduled complex case management conference,
each party shall file, serve and submit to the Court by e-mail at [email protected] a statement
of proposed amendments to or modifications of the then current complex case management
order. Microsoft Word is the preferred format. Proposals shall be limited to proposed findings
and orders. Argument in the proposed amendments is prohibited. Transmittal letters or e-mails
to the Court concerning Proposed Case Management Orders or amendments thereto (other than
e-mail transmitting a proposed order) are prohibited and not read by the Court. The Court has
authorized only submission of a statement of proposed amendments to or modifications of the
then current complex case management order on the Friday before a scheduled CCMC.
Supplemental briefs and letters are not authorized. Circumvention by submitting argumentative
material in the proposed modifications is prohibited.
Electronic copies of the Summary Adjudication Motions and responses and Exhibits
thereto may be emailed to the court if of reasonable file size otherwise furnished to the court and
counsel on CD or DVD.
Complex case management conferences in this case are set in Department Four as
follows:
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Complex Case Management Order - 15
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
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at: 1:30 pm
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 3:00 pm VACATED
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 8:30 am VACATED
Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 3:00 PM VACATED
Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 3:00 PM
Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM continued to Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 300 PM
Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 1:30 PM
Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 1:30 PM
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM continued to August 15, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 continued by Court minute order to August 29, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 continued by Court minute order to October 10, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 continued by Court minute order to October 17, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM
Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 1:30 PM continued to Friday, July 12, 2013 at 1:30 PM
Complex Case Management Order - 16
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
Friday, September 27, at 1:30 PM continued to October 25, 2013 at 1:30 PM and further
continued to Friday, December 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM.
Friday, April 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2013 ________________________________
DONNA D. GECKJudge of the Superior Court
