SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT
Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA" or "Defendant"), by and through its attorneys of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, hereby submits this Case Management Statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.725, in advance of the Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for March 10, 2023, before the Honorable Raymond Escobedo in Department 34 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Central District.
I. PARTY INFORMATION
A. Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc.
Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, Delaware File No. 5284731, and is qualified to transact business in the State of California. AMA's principal office is located at 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069. AMA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC, a public limited company organized under the laws of England and Wales (Companies House Registration No. 08412667), headquartered at 34 Kingsway, London WC2B 6EX, United Kingdom. Aurelius Global Media Group PLC is listed on the London Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol LSE: AGMG.
AMA's registered agent for service of process in California is Pacific Statutory Agents Inc., located at 2901 W. Alameda Ave., Suite 200, Burbank, California 91505.
B. Counsel of Record for Defendant
AMA is represented in this action by the following counsel of record:
Calderwood & Harkness LLP Renata Vasquez (SBN 224578) — Responsible Partner Devon Archer (SBN 301462) — Lead Associate 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7200 Facsimile: (213) 555-7201
Email: rvasquez@calderwoodharkness.com / darcher@calderwoodharkness.com
C&H Matter No.: 1017-00004
C. Named Plaintiffs
The named plaintiffs in this consolidated action are:
1. Marisol Fuentes — A former Production Coordinator in AMA's Unscripted Programming Division, employed by AMA from approximately March 14, 2019 through August 5, 2022.
2. Derek Halloran — A former Post-Production Assistant in AMA's Digital Content Division, employed by AMA from approximately June 1, 2020 through November 30, 2022.
3. Yesenia Padilla — A former Segment Coordinator in AMA's Live Events Division, employed by AMA from approximately January 10, 2018 through May 17, 2022.
D. Plaintiffs' Counsel
Plaintiffs are represented by the following counsel:
Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP (Lead Class Counsel) Marco Castellano (SBN 198422) Diane Salas Trevor Kim 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90025
Veltrano Employment Law Group PC (PAGA Co-Counsel) Sandra Higuera (SBN 217893) 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90071
II. NATURE OF CASE
A. Overview
This is a consolidated putative class action alleging wage-and-hour violations under the California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.), as well as representative claims brought under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698–2699.8). The action arises from Plaintiffs' allegations that AMA failed to provide compliant meal and rest periods to its non-exempt hourly employees working at various California production facilities, failed to pay overtime compensation for alleged off-the-clock work, and committed derivative violations of California's wage statement, minimum wage, and waiting time penalty statutes.
B. Statutory Provisions at Issue
The Consolidated Complaint invokes the following statutes and regulatory provisions:
• California Labor Code §§ 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 226, and 201–203;
• California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (Unfair Competition Law);
• California Labor Code §§ 2698–2699.8 (Private Attorneys General Act); and
• Applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, primarily Wage Order 12 (Motion Picture Industry).
C. Causes of Action
The Consolidated Complaint asserts seven causes of action:
1. First Cause of Action — Failure to provide compliant meal periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512;
2. Second Cause of Action — Failure to provide compliant rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7;
3. Third Cause of Action — Failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510 and 1194;
4. Fourth Cause of Action — Failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1;
5. Fifth Cause of Action — Failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226;
6. Sixth Cause of Action — Failure to timely pay wages upon separation from employment in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201–203 (waiting time penalties); and
7. Seventh Cause of Action — Unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (Unfair Competition Law).
In addition, Plaintiffs assert representative claims for penalties under PAGA on behalf of themselves and all aggrieved employees.
D. Putative Class Definition
As pled in the Consolidated Complaint, Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:
All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. who worked in the State of California at any time from November 1, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval of any class settlement.
Based on preliminary data available to AMA, the putative class encompasses approximately 1,850 individuals.
E. Core Factual Allegations
The core allegations underlying Plaintiffs' claims are as follows:
(i) Meal Period Violations. Plaintiffs allege that AMA systematically failed to provide compliant meal periods by implementing an auto-deduction of 30 minutes through the NovaPay Solutions "TimeTrack Pro" timekeeping system without providing an adequate mechanism for employees to report missed, short, or interrupted meal periods. Plaintiffs contend that this practice resulted in the under-recording of compensable time and the failure to pay meal period premium wages owed under California Labor Code § 226.7.
(ii) Rest Period Violations. Plaintiffs allege that AMA failed to authorize and permit compliant rest periods, particularly during high-intensity production periods, and that AMA's supervisory personnel regularly required or permitted employees to work through rest periods without adequate compensation.
(iii) Overtime and Off-the-Clock Work. Plaintiffs allege that AMA failed to pay overtime compensation for pre-shift and post-shift work, including time spent setting up equipment, attending production briefings, and performing other duties before and after recorded shift times. Plaintiffs contend that AMA's timekeeping practices systematically failed to capture this compensable time.
(iv) Derivative Claims. Plaintiffs assert derivative claims for inaccurate wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226), minimum wage violations (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1197.1), and waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201–203), each flowing from the alleged meal period, rest period, and overtime violations.
(v) Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs allege that AMA's purported wage-and-hour violations constitute unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business practices under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
(vi) PAGA Representative Penalties. Plaintiffs seek civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act for the foregoing alleged violations on behalf of themselves and all aggrieved employees.
F. Aggregate Damages Claimed
According to Plaintiffs' counsel's pre-suit PAGA notice submitted to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA"), Plaintiffs estimate aggregate damages of approximately $38.6 million, which includes approximately $12.2 million in claimed PAGA penalties.
G. PAGA Notice
Plaintiffs filed a PAGA notice with the LWDA on September 15, 2022. The LWDA's 65-day response deadline expired on November 14, 2022, and the LWDA took no action on the notice.
H. AMA's Position
AMA denies all of Plaintiffs' allegations in their entirety. AMA maintains that its written meal and rest break policies fully comply with the requirements of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders. AMA further maintains that the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system includes mechanisms for employees to report missed, short, or late meal periods and rest periods, and that AMA's policies and practices were designed to ensure that employees received all meal and rest breaks to which they were entitled. AMA also contends that the significant individualized variation in working conditions, production schedules, supervisory structures, and operational requirements across AMA's seven California production facilities and 14 distinct show units precludes class-wide adjudication of Plaintiffs' claims.
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The procedural history of this consolidated action is as follows:
• November 1, 2022: Named plaintiff Marisol Fuentes filed the original complaint in Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., Case No. 22STCV38214, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
• November 18, 2022: Named plaintiff Derek Halloran filed a related complaint in Halloran v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., Case No. 22STCV39501, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
• November 28, 2022: AMA filed a Notice of Related Case pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300, advising the Court of the relationship between the Fuentes and Halloran actions.
• December 19, 2022: AMA filed its Demurrer to the Seventh Cause of Action (UCL — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) in the Fuentes action. The demurrer remains pending, and a hearing date has not yet been set by the Court.
• January 27, 2023: The parties entered into a stipulation to consolidate the Fuentes and Halloran actions for all purposes.
• February 3, 2023: The Court (Hon. Raymond Escobedo, Dept. 34) entered an Order Granting Consolidation. Case No. 22STCV38214 was designated as the lead case, and all future filings were ordered to be made in the lead case. All matters in the consolidated action were assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Raymond Escobedo, Department 34. Pursuant to the consolidation order, Yesenia Padilla was added as a named plaintiff.
• February 10, 2023: The parties executed a Stipulation Regarding Protective Order providing for two-tier confidentiality designations: "CONFIDENTIAL" and "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY."
• February 15, 2023: The Court entered the Stipulated Protective Order.
• February 17, 2023: AMA filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Consolidated Complaint.
Pending Matters: AMA's Demurrer to the Seventh Cause of Action (UCL — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), filed on December 19, 2022, remains pending. AMA respectfully requests that the Court schedule a hearing on the Demurrer at the earliest available date, and preferably prior to or concurrent with the commencement of the class certification briefing schedule discussed below in Section VI.
IV. RELATED CASES
AMA is aware of the following related case:
A. *Aldrich v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.*, Case No. 22STCV41087
This action was filed on December 9, 2022, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and is currently assigned to the Honorable Catherine Villanueva, Department 52. The plaintiff in the Aldrich action is Gavin Aldrich, AMA's former Senior Vice President of Original Content and Executive Producer. Mr. Aldrich's claims are fundamentally distinct from the class action claims at issue in the present consolidated action.
The Aldrich action involves the following claims:
• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy;
• Breach of contract, specifically challenging AMA's determination that Mr. Aldrich's termination was "for cause" under the terms of his Employment Agreement;
• Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
• Declaratory relief regarding the enforceability of post-employment restrictive covenants contained in Mr. Aldrich's Employment Agreement, including an 18-month non-competition clause and 24-month non-solicitation clauses; and
• Violation of California Labor Code § 2802 (failure to reimburse business expenses).
On January 20, 2023, AMA filed a Cross-Complaint against Aldrich in the related action, asserting the following claims:
• Breach of the Employment Agreement (confidentiality provisions);
• Misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq. ("CUTSA");
• Breach of fiduciary duty; and
• Conversion of proprietary digital files.
B. AMA's Position on Consolidation of the Aldrich Action
AMA does not believe that consolidation of the Aldrich matter with the present class action is appropriate, and AMA would oppose any such request. The Aldrich claims involve fundamentally different legal theories — including executive compensation disputes, restrictive covenant enforceability, and trade secret misappropriation — and arise from an entirely different factual predicate (the individual employment relationship and termination of a senior officer) than the claims asserted in this class action, which concern systematic wage-and-hour practices allegedly affecting approximately 1,850 non-exempt hourly employees. Consolidation would inject irrelevant individual issues into the class proceedings and vice versa, creating unnecessary confusion, delay, and prejudice to both sets of litigants. AMA is not aware of any overlapping witnesses, documentary evidence, or common legal issues between the two matters that would justify consolidation.
V. DISCOVERY PLAN
A. ESI Protocol
The parties entered into an ESI Protocol Stipulation and Order on January 13, 2023, which governs the format and procedures for the production of electronically stored information ("ESI") in this litigation. The ESI Protocol provides, among other things, for the following:
• Format: Spreadsheets and databases are to be produced in native format. Emails and other documents are to be produced in image format (TIFF or PDF) with extracted text and metadata.
• Search Methodology: The parties agreed to employ keyword searches supplemented by targeted custodial review to identify responsive documents. The parties have exchanged initial keyword search term lists and are continuing to negotiate any modifications to those lists.
• De-Duplication: Documents are to be de-duplicated across custodians using hash-value matching prior to review.
• Privilege Logging: The parties agreed to produce privilege logs on a rolling basis, with entries to include sufficient information for the opposing party to assess the validity of each privilege claim.
• Clawback Provisions: The ESI Protocol incorporates clawback provisions consistent with California Evidence Code § 912(c) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) (to the extent applicable by analogy), providing that the inadvertent production of privileged materials shall not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.
B. E-discovery Vendor
The parties are utilizing Marlowe Asset Management Litigation Technology Inc., located at 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900, Costa Mesa, California 92626, as the e-discovery vendor for purposes of data collection, processing, hosting, and production in this matter.
C. Key Custodians (AMA Side)
AMA has identified the following key custodians whose documents and ESI will be collected, processed, and reviewed for production:
1. Lorraine Okafor — Senior Vice President, Human Resources;
2. Gregory Tanaka — Vice President, Legal & Compliance;
3. Marcus Yee — Director of Client Data Services, NovaPay Solutions Inc. (third-party custodian);
4. Jonathan Mercer — President, Aurelius Media Americas Inc.;
5. Celine Arroyo — Director of Production Operations;
6. Dwayne Prescott — Vice President of Unscripted Programming; and
7. Karen Fong — Payroll Manager.
AMA reserves the right to identify additional custodians as discovery progresses and the scope of the relevant issues is further refined.
D. Estimated Document Production Volume
AMA anticipates producing approximately 150,000 documents from the identified custodians and data sources. The anticipated production includes, but is not limited to: timekeeping data from the NovaPay Solutions TimeTrack Pro system; payroll records and payroll processing data; production schedules and call sheets; employee handbooks and policy manuals; meal and rest break policies and related training materials; onboarding and compliance acknowledgment forms; and relevant email communications among the identified custodians.
E. Third-Party Subpoena to NovaPay Solutions Inc.
On February 8, 2023, AMA issued a subpoena duces tecum directed to NovaPay Solutions Inc., located at 2200 Powell Street, Suite 600, Emeryville, California 94608. The subpoena seeks all timekeeping records, payroll data, system configuration records, audit logs, exception reports, and related system documentation for AMA's California non-exempt employees for the class period (November 1, 2018 through the present). The subpoena also includes a deposition subpoena for Marcus Yee, NovaPay's Director of Client Data Services, as the person most knowledgeable regarding the configuration, functionality, and data extraction capabilities of the TimeTrack Pro system as implemented for AMA.
AMA believes that the TimeTrack Pro system configuration records and audit logs will demonstrate that AMA's timekeeping system included adequate mechanisms for employees to report missed, short, or interrupted meal periods, directly rebutting Plaintiffs' core allegation regarding the alleged auto-deduction practice.
F. Proposed discovery Schedule
AMA proposes the following discovery schedule for pre-certification merits and class discovery:
AMA respectfully requests that the Court adopt this proposed schedule, or a substantially similar schedule, at the Initial Case Management Conference.
G. Depositions
AMA anticipates that the parties will collectively conduct approximately 15 to 20 depositions during the pre-certification phase of this litigation. AMA expects that depositions will include, at a minimum, the following categories of witnesses:
• Depositions of the three named plaintiffs (Marisol Fuentes, Derek Halloran, and Yesenia Padilla);
• Depositions of AMA's persons most knowledgeable ("PMK") on topics including, but not limited to: timekeeping and payroll practices; meal and rest break policies and their implementation across AMA's California facilities; production scheduling and staffing practices; human resources policies and complaint procedures; and the configuration and operation of the TimeTrack Pro system;
• Depositions of relevant AMA managerial witnesses, including production managers and supervisors at the various California facilities;
• Deposition of the NovaPay Solutions PMK (Marcus Yee); and
• Depositions of the parties' respective expert witnesses following the exchange of expert reports.
H. Protective Order
As noted in Section III above, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order on February 15, 2023. The Protective Order establishes a two-tier confidentiality system governing the treatment of confidential business information, trade secrets, and personal employee data produced or disclosed in this litigation. The two tiers of confidentiality designation are: (1) "CONFIDENTIAL" and (2) "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." No amendments to the Protective Order are currently anticipated, though AMA reserves the right to seek modifications if circumstances warrant.
VI. CLASS CERTIFICATION
A. Plaintiffs' Anticipated Motion
Plaintiffs have indicated through meet-and-confer communications that they intend to file a motion for class certification pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 and applicable case law.
B. AMA's Opposition
AMA intends to oppose class certification. AMA will file a comprehensive opposition supported by detailed declarations from AMA operational and human resources personnel, as well as expert analysis demonstrating significant variability in working conditions, scheduling practices, meal and rest break implementation, and supervisory discretion across AMA's seven California production facilities and 14 distinct show units. AMA contends that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirements for class certification under California law.
C. Proposed Briefing Schedule
AMA proposes the following briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification:
AMA respectfully requests that the Court adopt this proposed schedule, or a substantially similar schedule, to allow the parties sufficient time to complete pre-certification discovery before the motion is fully briefed.
D. AMA's Principal Arguments Against Certification
AMA anticipates that its principal arguments in opposition to class certification will include the following:
(a) Predominance. Individual questions of fact predominate over common questions, particularly given the substantial variation across AMA's 14 show units and 7 California facilities in production schedules, supervisory practices, and meal and rest break implementation. Each show unit operates under distinct production demands, staffing configurations, and shift patterns. The determination of whether any individual employee missed a meal or rest period, or performed compensable off-the-clock work, will necessarily require individualized inquiries that cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis.
(b) Typicality. The named plaintiffs are not typical of the putative class, as each worked in a different division (Unscripted Programming, Digital Content, and Live Events) at a different facility under different supervisors. The circumstances of each named plaintiff's employment — including the production schedules they worked, the supervisory oversight they received, and the meal and rest break practices they experienced — differ materially from one another and from the experiences of putative class members in other divisions and facilities.
(c) Superiority. A class action is not a superior method of adjudicating Plaintiffs' claims given the highly individualized nature of the inquiry required to determine liability and damages. Individual arbitration or adjudication of claims would be more efficient and would avoid the significant manageability challenges that would attend a trial of class claims involving 1,850 employees across 14 show units and 7 facilities.
AMA reserves the right to raise additional arguments in its opposition to class certification.
VII. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
AMA is willing to participate in mediation at an appropriate time. AMA believes, however, that mediation would be most productive if conducted after the Court issues its ruling on class certification. At that point, the parties will be better positioned to assess the value of the case and engage in meaningful settlement discussions, because the scope of any certified class (or the denial of certification) will materially affect the litigation risk calculus and the range of reasonable settlement values.
AMA proposes that the parties engage the services of the Honorable Patricia Okoro (Ret.) of Westpark Dispute Resolution Inc. as the mediator for this matter. Judge Okoro's offices are located at 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067. Judge Okoro is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge who served on the bench for over 25 years and has extensive experience mediating complex employment class actions and PAGA representative actions in the California state courts. AMA believes that Judge Okoro's subject matter expertise and familiarity with the applicable legal framework make her an ideal choice to facilitate settlement discussions in this matter.
AMA anticipates that if the Court rules on class certification by late July or early August 2023 in accordance with the proposed briefing schedule set forth in Section VI above, mediation could be scheduled for late August or September 2023.
AMA has not participated in any prior mediation or settlement discussions with Plaintiffs regarding the claims at issue in this action.
VIII. TRIAL ESTIMATE
If this matter does not settle or otherwise resolve prior to trial, AMA estimates that trial would require approximately 15 to 20 court days, depending on the scope of any class certified by the Court and the number of witnesses required to testify on common and individualized issues.
AMA is prepared to discuss trial scheduling with the Court and Plaintiffs' counsel following the resolution of the class certification motion. AMA respectfully requests that the Court defer setting a trial date until after the certification ruling is issued, as the scope, structure, and anticipated length of any trial will depend significantly on the Court's class certification decision. In particular, the number of representative class member witnesses, the extent of individualized proof required, and the trial plan for common versus individualized issues cannot be meaningfully assessed until the contours of any certified class are known.
In the event the Court certifies a class, AMA anticipates that trial on the class claims would need to address both common issues (such as the existence and adequacy of AMA's written policies) and individualized issues (such as whether any particular employee actually missed a meal or rest period and whether any particular employee performed uncompensated off-the-clock work). Trial would involve testimony from representative class members, AMA operational and human resources witnesses, production supervisors, payroll and timekeeping personnel, and the parties' respective expert witnesses.
AMA reserves the right to request that the Court bifurcate trial into separate phases for common and individualized issues, or to propose other trial management procedures, following the certification ruling.
IX. INSURANCE
AMA maintains the following insurance coverages relevant to this litigation:
A. Employment Practices Liability Insurance
AMA maintains Employment Practices Liability ("EPL") insurance with Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co. under Policy No. PMA-EPL-2022-00837. The policy carries a $5,000,000 self-insured retention and provides a $15,000,000 aggregate limit. AMA tendered the defense of this action to Pemberton Mutual Assurance Co. on November 8, 2022. Pemberton acknowledged coverage on December 22, 2022, subject to a full reservation of rights. AMA's defense in this action is being conducted by Calderwood & Harkness LLP as monitoring counsel, and Pemberton has been cooperating with AMA in the defense of this action.
B. Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance
AMA also maintains Directors' and Officers' Liability ("D&O") coverage through Redcliffe Specialty Insurance Ltd. under Policy No. RSI-DO-2022-04419, which provides a $10,000,000 primary limit. Excess coverage is provided through Ashford Re Ltd. under Policy No. ARL-EX-2022-01102, which provides an additional $25,000,000 in excess tower coverage. AMA has provided precautionary notice of this litigation to both Redcliffe Specialty Insurance Ltd. and Ashford Re Ltd.
X. JURY TRIAL
AMA has not waived its right to a jury trial. AMA anticipates that this matter, if it proceeds to trial, will be tried to a jury. AMA's Answer and Affirmative Defenses, filed on February 17, 2023, included a demand for jury trial.
XI. OTHER MATTERS
A. Pending Demurrer
As noted in Section III above, AMA's Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Seventh Cause of Action (UCL — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) was filed on December 19, 2022, and is pending hearing. AMA contends that the UCL claim is duplicative of Plaintiffs' statutory causes of action under the Labor Code and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. AMA respectfully requests that the Court schedule the hearing on the Demurrer at the earliest available date, and preferably prior to or concurrent with the commencement of the class certification briefing schedule, so that the scope of Plaintiffs' claims is clarified before class certification is addressed.
B. Protective Order
The Stipulated Protective Order, entered by the Court on February 15, 2023, remains in full force and effect. No amendments to the Protective Order are currently anticipated by AMA.
C. AMA's California Production Facilities
AMA operates seven production facilities in the State of California, all of which are relevant to the scope of the putative class claims. These facilities are:
1. 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, CA 90069 — Corporate headquarters and post-production;
2. 4024 Penmark Strategy Partners Avenue, Studio City, CA 91604 — Stage A and Stage B (unscripted programming);
3. 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 — Digital content production;
4. 3800 W. Alameda Avenue, Burbank, CA 91505 — Live events and field production;
5. 1438 N. Gower Street, Hollywood, CA 90028 — Scripted development;
6. 2120 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90404 — E-commerce studio; and
7. 888 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, CA 90245 — Post-production annex.
AMA operates 14 distinct production and show units across these seven facilities. Each show unit maintains its own scheduling practices, supervisory structures, and operational requirements, which vary significantly based on the nature of the production (unscripted, scripted development, digital content, live events, e-commerce), the production schedule (daily, weekly, seasonal), and the specific demands of each project. AMA believes that this variability is highly relevant to the class certification analysis and will demonstrate that individual questions of fact predominate over any common questions, precluding certification.
D. Payroll and Timekeeping Vendor
AMA's payroll processing and electronic timekeeping services are provided by NovaPay Solutions Inc., located at 2200 Powell Street, Suite 600, Emeryville, California 94608. NovaPay has provided AMA's payroll processing and electronic timekeeping system, known as "TimeTrack Pro," since January 1, 2019. The TimeTrack Pro system is central to Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the purported auto-deduction of meal periods. AMA contends that the TimeTrack Pro system, as configured for AMA, includes multiple mechanisms for employees to report missed, short, or interrupted meal periods, including electronic exception reporting and supervisor approval workflows, and that AMA's policies and training required employees to use these mechanisms to report any meal or rest period deviation.
XII. CONCLUSION
AMA respectfully requests that the Court consider the foregoing and enter a Case Management Order consistent with the proposed discovery and class certification briefing schedules set forth herein. AMA further requests that the Court schedule the hearing on AMA's pending Demurrer at the earliest available date.
AMA is prepared to address any additional matters at the Initial Case Management Conference on March 10, 2023.
Dated: March 3, 2023
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: /s/ Devon Archer
Devon Archer (SBN 301462) 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 555-7200 Facsimile: (213) 555-7201
Email: darcher@calderwoodharkness.com
Attorneys for Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc.
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90017. On March 3, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as:
DEFENDANT AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
on the interested parties in this action by transmitting a true and correct copy via electronic service through the Court's approved electronic filing service provider to the following persons at the electronic service addresses listed below:
Marco Castellano, Esq. Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90025
Email: mcastellano@cbsllp.com
Sandra Higuera, Esq. Veltrano Employment Law Group PC 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90071
Email: shiguera@ridgemontlaw.com
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 3, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
________________________________________
Brianna Kowalski
MARISOL FUENTES, DEREK HALLORAN, and YESENIA PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
(Consolidated with Case No. 22STCV39501)
Plaintiffs,
Assigned for All Purposes to:
| v. | Hon. Raymond Escobedo, Dept. 34 |
| AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, | DEFENDANT AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC.'S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT |
| Defendants. | Filed Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.725 |
Date: March 10, 2023