1017-00004 · Entities. Aurelius Global Media Group · Pleadings/Class Action

notice-of-related-case.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

127 / 150 ← → ✕

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT

Date: November 28, 2022 Dept.: To Be Assigned Action Filed: November 14, 2022

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300, Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA" or "Defendant"), by and through its counsel of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, hereby gives notice that the following action is related to this case within the meaning of Rule 3.300(a). This Notice is filed in compliance with the requirement under the California Rules of Court that a party must file a Notice of Related Case upon learning of an action that meets the criteria for related cases as set forth in Rule 3.300(a). AMA submits this Notice promptly upon learning of the filing of the related action identified below, and respectfully requests that the Court take such action as is appropriate under the applicable rules, including assignment of the related case to the same judicial officer presently assigned to, or to be assigned to, this action.

I. IDENTIFICATION OF THE RELATED CASE

The related action of which AMA hereby gives notice is identified as follows:

Case Title: Derek Halloran v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.

Case Number: 22STCV39501

Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles — Central District

Date Filed: November 18, 2022

Department: Not yet assigned as of the date of this Notice

The Halloran action was filed four days after the instant action, Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., Case No. 22STCV38214 (filed November 14, 2022), in the same court and the same district. Both actions arise from the same course of conduct by the same defendant, assert the same causes of action, and seek relief on behalf of the same putative class of California employees, as more fully described below.

II. PARTIES IN THE RELATED CASE

A. Plaintiff. The plaintiff in the related action is Derek Halloran, who brings suit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Mr. Halloran is a former Post-Production Assistant within the Digital Content Division of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Upon information and belief, Mr. Halloran's residence is located at 1518 N. Cahuenga Boulevard, Unit 3B, Hollywood, California 90028. Like Plaintiff Marisol Fuentes in the instant action, Mr. Halloran alleges that he was a non-exempt, hourly employee of AMA who was subjected to the same wage-and-hour policies and practices that form the basis of both complaints.

B. Defendant. The sole named defendant in the Halloran action is Aurelius Media Americas Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (Delaware File No. 5284731), with its principal office located at 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069. AMA's registered agent for service of process in California is Pacific Statutory Agents Inc., located at 2901 W. Alameda Avenue, Suite 200, Burbank, California 91505. AMA is the same sole named defendant in the instant action, Case No. 22STCV38214.

C. Counsel for Plaintiff Halloran

Plaintiff Halloran is represented by Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP, through its attorneys Marco Castellano (State Bar No. 198422) and Diane Salas, with offices located at 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900, Los Angeles, California 90025. AMA respectfully directs the Court's attention to the fact that Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP is the same firm that serves as counsel for Plaintiff Marisol Fuentes in the instant action, Case No. 22STCV38214. The retention of the same plaintiffs' counsel in both actions further underscores the identity of the claims and the relatedness of the two proceedings.

D. Counsel for Defendant AMA

In both the instant action and the Halloran action, Defendant AMA is represented by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, through its attorneys Renata Vasquez (State Bar No. 224578) and Devon Archer (State Bar No. 301462), with offices at 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90017, telephone (213) 555-7200.

III. NATURE OF THE RELATED CASE

A. Overview. The Halloran action, like the instant Fuentes action, is a putative class action alleging wage-and-hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes against Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Both actions are brought on behalf of a substantially identical putative class of current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of AMA who worked in the State of California during the same class period.

B. Claims Asserted in Halloran (22STCV39501)

The complaint in the Halloran action asserts the following causes of action, each of which is materially identical to the causes of action asserted in the instant Fuentes action:

1. Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods — in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512, alleging that AMA failed to provide its non-exempt employees with timely, uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of not less than thirty (30) minutes for every work period of more than five (5) hours, and failed to pay one additional hour of compensation at the employees' regular rate of pay for each workday on which a compliant meal period was not provided.

2. Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods — in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7, alleging that AMA failed to authorize and permit its non-exempt employees to take paid rest periods of not less than ten (10) net minutes for every four (4) hours of work, or major fraction thereof, and failed to pay the required premium compensation when such rest periods were not provided.

3. Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation — in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194, alleging that AMA failed to compensate its non-exempt employees at the applicable overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in any one workday, in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek, and for the first eight (8) hours of work on the seventh consecutive day of work in any one workweek, and at the applicable double-time rate for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in any one workday and in excess of eight (8) hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in any one workweek.

4. Failure to Pay Minimum Wage — in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1197 and 1197.1, alleging that AMA's practices, including its failure to compensate for all hours actually worked, resulted in the effective hourly rate for certain pay periods falling below the applicable California minimum wage.

5. Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements — in violation of California Labor Code Section 226, alleging that AMA failed to furnish its non-exempt employees with accurate, itemized wage statements reflecting, among other things, all hours worked, all applicable rates of pay, and the correct calculation of gross and net wages earned during each pay period.

6. Waiting Time Penalties — pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 201 through 203, alleging that AMA willfully failed to pay all wages earned and unpaid to employees at the time of their separation from employment, thereby entitling such employees to continuation wages for up to thirty (30) days.

7. Unfair Business Practices — pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (the "UCL"), alleging that AMA's wage-and-hour violations constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices.

8. PAGA Representative Claims — pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code Sections 2698 through 2699.8, seeking civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and all aggrieved employees for each violation of the California Labor Code alleged in the complaint.

C. Putative Class Definition

The putative class definition in the Halloran action is substantially identical to the class definition in the Fuentes action. In both cases, the named plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as:

All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. who worked in the State of California at any time during the period from November 1, 2018 through the date of final judgment or settlement in this action (the "Class Period").

The estimated size of the putative class in both actions is approximately 1,850 individuals. This figure reflects the total number of current and former non-exempt, hourly employees who were employed by AMA across its California operations during the Class Period, based on preliminary information available from AMA's records.

IV. BASIS FOR RELATEDNESS UNDER CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.300

Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300(a), cases are related when they:

(1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims;

(2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact;

(3) Involve claims against, title to, or possession of the same property; or

(4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.

The Halloran action satisfies criteria (1), (2), and (4), as set forth in detail below.

A. Same Parties and Same or Similar Claims (Rule 3.300(a)(1))

Both the Fuentes action (22STCV38214) and the Halloran action (22STCV39501) name the same sole defendant: Aurelius Media Americas Inc. No other entity is named as a defendant in either action, other than fictitious Doe defendants.

Both actions are represented by the same plaintiffs' counsel: Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP, through attorneys Marco Castellano and Diane Salas. The retention of the same law firm to prosecute both actions on behalf of different named plaintiffs — both of whom seek to represent the same putative class — further confirms the identity of the parties and claims.

Both actions assert substantially identical causes of action. The claims in each case arise under the same provisions of the California Labor Code, including Sections 201 through 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1, as well as the UCL (Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.) and the Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code Sections 2698 through 2699.8). The specific factual allegations underlying each cause of action are, in all material respects, the same.

Furthermore, both actions are brought as putative class actions on behalf of the same putative class of approximately 1,850 non-exempt, hourly employees of AMA in California during the same Class Period. The named plaintiffs in both actions were employed in similar positions within AMA's operations and allege that they were subjected to the same unlawful policies and practices.

B. Same or Substantially Identical Transactions and Questions of Law or Fact (Rule 3.300(a)(2))

Both the Fuentes action and the Halloran action arise from the same operative facts — namely, AMA's company-wide timekeeping practices, compensation policies, and meal and rest break practices as applied to its non-exempt, hourly workforce across its California operations.

Specifically, both actions challenge the same core set of employer policies and practices, including but not limited to:

(a) AMA's use of the NovaPay Solutions "TimeTrack Pro" electronic timekeeping system, and in particular the system's automatic meal period deduction feature, which plaintiffs in both actions allege systematically deducted thirty (30) minutes from employees' recorded work time each day regardless of whether the employee actually received a compliant, uninterrupted meal period;

(b) AMA's meal and rest break policies as applied across its seven (7) California production facilities and fourteen (14) show units, which plaintiffs in both actions allege failed to ensure that employees were relieved of all duties during meal and rest periods and failed to pay premium compensation when compliant breaks were not provided;

(c) Alleged off-the-clock work performed by production-support employees during pre-production and post-production periods, including time spent performing preparatory tasks before the start of scheduled shifts and completing wrap-up tasks after the end of scheduled shifts, for which plaintiffs in both actions allege no compensation was paid; and

(d) AMA's payroll practices and wage statement procedures, which plaintiffs in both actions allege resulted in inaccurate wage statements and the underpayment of wages owed.

Both actions require the determination of substantially identical questions of law and fact, including but not limited to the following:

(i) Whether AMA's auto-deduction policy, as implemented through the TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system, resulted in systematic underpayment for missed or shortened meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512;

(ii) Whether AMA provided its non-exempt employees with rest periods that complied with the requirements of California Labor Code Section 226.7 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders;

(iii) Whether production-support employees were required or suffered or permitted to perform off-the-clock work during pre-production and post-production periods without compensation, in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1;

(iv) Whether the applicable IWC Wage Order — primarily IWC Wage Order No. 12 (Motion Picture Industry) — was complied with by AMA with respect to the payment of wages, the provision of meal and rest periods, and the maintenance of accurate time and payroll records;

(v) Whether AMA's wage statements accurately reflected all hours worked and all compensation earned by its non-exempt employees, as required by California Labor Code Section 226;

(vi) Whether AMA's conduct was willful within the meaning of California Labor Code Sections 201 through 203, thereby entitling separated employees to waiting time penalties; and

(vii) Whether AMA's alleged Labor Code violations constitute unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices within the meaning of the UCL.

The foregoing questions of law and fact are, in all material respects, identical in both actions. Resolution of these questions in one action will necessarily resolve or substantially inform the same questions in the other.

C. Substantial Duplication of Judicial Resources (Rule 3.300(a)(4))

If heard by different judicial officers, the Fuentes and Halloran actions would require substantial and unnecessary duplication of judicial resources. Among other things, parallel proceedings before different judges would entail:

(a) Duplicative discovery, including overlapping document production by AMA of the same categories of timekeeping records, payroll data, human resources policies, employee handbooks, production schedules, and corporate communications relevant to AMA's wage-and-hour practices across its California operations;

(b) Duplicative depositions of the same AMA corporate witnesses, including persons most qualified on topics such as timekeeping practices, meal and rest break policies, payroll processing, and the configuration and operation of the TimeTrack Pro system, as well as potential depositions of the same NovaPay Solutions representatives regarding the system's automatic deduction functionality;

(c) Duplicative expert proceedings, including the retention of the same or substantially similar damages experts, labor economics experts, and timekeeping/payroll system experts, and the submission of overlapping expert reports on identical issues;

(d) Duplicative class certification briefing, including substantially identical motions for class certification addressing the same commonality, typicality, numerosity, adequacy, and predominance issues with respect to the same putative class of approximately 1,850 employees;

(e) Duplicative motion practice on anticipated dispositive and procedural motions, including motions to compel arbitration (to the extent applicable), demurrers, motions for summary adjudication, and Daubert/Sargon challenges to expert testimony; and

(f) Duplicative trial proceedings, if the actions were to proceed to trial separately, which would require two judges and two juries (or two bench trials) to hear the same evidence and decide the same issues.

The risk of inconsistent rulings on identical legal and factual issues is significant. For example, if one judicial officer were to grant class certification in the Fuentes action while another were to deny class certification in the Halloran action — or if the two courts were to reach conflicting conclusions regarding the lawfulness of AMA's auto-deduction policy or the proper interpretation of IWC Wage Order No. 12 — the resulting inconsistency would undermine the interests of judicial economy, fairness, and the orderly administration of justice.

Assignment of both cases to the same judicial officer would eliminate these risks and permit the efficient and consistent adjudication of all claims.

V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Determine that Case No. 22STCV39501 (Halloran v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.) is related to Case No. 22STCV38214 (Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.) within the meaning of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300;

2. Assign Case No. 22STCV39501 to the same judicial officer assigned to, or to be assigned to, Case No. 22STCV38214 for all purposes; and

3. Set the matter for a hearing on consolidation or, alternatively, enter an order relating the cases and directing counsel in both actions to meet and confer regarding a stipulation for consolidation of the two actions.

AMA respectfully notes that it intends to seek consolidation of the Fuentes and Halloran actions for all purposes pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1048, with Case No. 22STCV38214 (Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.) designated as the lead case. AMA anticipates that Plaintiffs' counsel, Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP — which represents the named plaintiffs in both actions — will not oppose consolidation, and AMA intends to confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding a potential stipulation to that effect in advance of any hearing on the matter.

Dated: November 28, 2022

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Devon Archer (SBN 301462) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 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, the undersigned, declare as follows:

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90017.

On November 28, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF RELATED CASE on the interested parties in this action by transmitting a true and correct copy via electronic service through the Court's electronic filing system and by electronic mail to the persons at the electronic mail addresses set forth below:

Marco Castellano, Esq. CASTELLANO BYRNE & SALAS LLP 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90025

Email: mcastellano@relitigationlitigation.com

(Counsel for Plaintiff Marisol Fuentes in Case No. 22STCV38214 and Counsel for Plaintiff Derek Halloran in Case No. 22STCV39501)

Sandra Higuera, Esq. VELTRANO EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP PC 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90071

Email: shiguera@ridgemontlaw.com

(PAGA Co-Counsel)

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on November 28, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.

________________________________________

Jessica T. Moreno Litigation Paralegal CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

MARISOL FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,	Case No. 22STCV38214
Plaintiff,	NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
v.	[Filed pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.300]

AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT
Date: November 28, 2022 Dept.: To Be Assigned Action Filed: November 14, 2022
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300, Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. ("AMA" or "Defendant"), by and through its counsel of record, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, hereby gives notice that the following action is related to this case within the meaning of Rule 3.300(a). This Notice is filed in compliance with the requirement under the California Rules of Court that a party must file a Notice of Related Case upon learning of an action that meets the criteria for related cases as set forth in Rule 3.300(a). AMA submits this Notice promptly upon learning of the filing of the related action identified below, and respectfully requests that the Court take such action as is appropriate under the applicable rules, including assignment of the related case to the same judicial officer presently assigned to, or to be assigned to, this action.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF THE RELATED CASE
The related action of which AMA hereby gives notice is identified as follows:
Case Title: Derek Halloran v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.
Case Number: 22STCV39501
Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles — Central District
Date Filed: November 18, 2022
Department: Not yet assigned as of the date of this Notice
The Halloran action was filed four days after the instant action, Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc., Case No. 22STCV38214 (filed November 14, 2022), in the same court and the same district. Both actions arise from the same course of conduct by the same defendant, assert the same causes of action, and seek relief on behalf of the same putative class of California employees, as more fully described below.
II. PARTIES IN THE RELATED CASE
A. Plaintiff.  The plaintiff in the related action is Derek Halloran, who brings suit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Mr. Halloran is a former Post-Production Assistant within the Digital Content Division of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Upon information and belief, Mr. Halloran's residence is located at 1518 N. Cahuenga Boulevard, Unit 3B, Hollywood, California 90028. Like Plaintiff Marisol Fuentes in the instant action, Mr. Halloran alleges that he was a non-exempt, hourly employee of AMA who was subjected to the same wage-and-hour policies and practices that form the basis of both complaints.
B. Defendant.  The sole named defendant in the Halloran action is Aurelius Media Americas Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (Delaware File No. 5284731), with its principal office located at 8500 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069. AMA's registered agent for service of process in California is Pacific Statutory Agents Inc., located at 2901 W. Alameda Avenue, Suite 200, Burbank, California 91505. AMA is the same sole named defendant in the instant action, Case No. 22STCV38214.
C. Counsel for Plaintiff Halloran
Plaintiff Halloran is represented by Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP, through its attorneys Marco Castellano (State Bar No. 198422) and Diane Salas, with offices located at 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900, Los Angeles, California 90025. AMA respectfully directs the Court's attention to the fact that Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP is the same firm that serves as counsel for Plaintiff Marisol Fuentes in the instant action, Case No. 22STCV38214. The retention of the same plaintiffs' counsel in both actions further underscores the identity of the claims and the relatedness of the two proceedings.
D. Counsel for Defendant AMA
In both the instant action and the Halloran action, Defendant AMA is represented by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, through its attorneys Renata Vasquez (State Bar No. 224578) and Devon Archer (State Bar No. 301462), with offices at 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90017, telephone (213) 555-7200.
III. NATURE OF THE RELATED CASE
A. Overview.  The Halloran action, like the instant Fuentes action, is a putative class action alleging wage-and-hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes against Aurelius Media Americas Inc. Both actions are brought on behalf of a substantially identical putative class of current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of AMA who worked in the State of California during the same class period.
B. Claims Asserted in Halloran (22STCV39501)
The complaint in the Halloran action asserts the following causes of action, each of which is materially identical to the causes of action asserted in the instant Fuentes action:
1.  Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods — in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512, alleging that AMA failed to provide its non-exempt employees with timely, uninterrupted, duty-free meal periods of not less than thirty (30) minutes for every work period of more than five (5) hours, and failed to pay one additional hour of compensation at the employees' regular rate of pay for each workday on which a compliant meal period was not provided.
2.  Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods — in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7, alleging that AMA failed to authorize and permit its non-exempt employees to take paid rest periods of not less than ten (10) net minutes for every four (4) hours of work, or major fraction thereof, and failed to pay the required premium compensation when such rest periods were not provided.
3.  Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation — in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194, alleging that AMA failed to compensate its non-exempt employees at the applicable overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in any one workday, in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek, and for the first eight (8) hours of work on the seventh consecutive day of work in any one workweek, and at the applicable double-time rate for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours in any one workday and in excess of eight (8) hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in any one workweek.
4.  Failure to Pay Minimum Wage — in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1197 and 1197.1, alleging that AMA's practices, including its failure to compensate for all hours actually worked, resulted in the effective hourly rate for certain pay periods falling below the applicable California minimum wage.
5.  Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements — in violation of California Labor Code Section 226, alleging that AMA failed to furnish its non-exempt employees with accurate, itemized wage statements reflecting, among other things, all hours worked, all applicable rates of pay, and the correct calculation of gross and net wages earned during each pay period.
6.  Waiting Time Penalties — pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 201 through 203, alleging that AMA willfully failed to pay all wages earned and unpaid to employees at the time of their separation from employment, thereby entitling such employees to continuation wages for up to thirty (30) days.
7.  Unfair Business Practices — pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (the "UCL"), alleging that AMA's wage-and-hour violations constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices.
8.  PAGA Representative Claims — pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code Sections 2698 through 2699.8, seeking civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and all aggrieved employees for each violation of the California Labor Code alleged in the complaint.
C. Putative Class Definition
The putative class definition in the Halloran action is substantially identical to the class definition in the Fuentes action. In both cases, the named plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as:
All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Aurelius Media Americas Inc. who worked in the State of California at any time during the period from November 1, 2018 through the date of final judgment or settlement in this action (the "Class Period").
The estimated size of the putative class in both actions is approximately 1,850 individuals. This figure reflects the total number of current and former non-exempt, hourly employees who were employed by AMA across its California operations during the Class Period, based on preliminary information available from AMA's records.
IV. BASIS FOR RELATEDNESS UNDER CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.300
Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300(a), cases are related when they:
(1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims;
(2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact;
(3) Involve claims against, title to, or possession of the same property; or
(4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.
The Halloran action satisfies criteria (1), (2), and (4), as set forth in detail below.
A. Same Parties and Same or Similar Claims (Rule 3.300(a)(1))
Both the Fuentes action (22STCV38214) and the Halloran action (22STCV39501) name the same sole defendant: Aurelius Media Americas Inc. No other entity is named as a defendant in either action, other than fictitious Doe defendants.
Both actions are represented by the same plaintiffs' counsel: Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP, through attorneys Marco Castellano and Diane Salas. The retention of the same law firm to prosecute both actions on behalf of different named plaintiffs — both of whom seek to represent the same putative class — further confirms the identity of the parties and claims.
Both actions assert substantially identical causes of action. The claims in each case arise under the same provisions of the California Labor Code, including Sections 201 through 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1, as well as the UCL (Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.) and the Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code Sections 2698 through 2699.8). The specific factual allegations underlying each cause of action are, in all material respects, the same.
Furthermore, both actions are brought as putative class actions on behalf of the same putative class of approximately 1,850 non-exempt, hourly employees of AMA in California during the same Class Period. The named plaintiffs in both actions were employed in similar positions within AMA's operations and allege that they were subjected to the same unlawful policies and practices.
B. Same or Substantially Identical Transactions and Questions of Law or Fact (Rule 3.300(a)(2))
Both the Fuentes action and the Halloran action arise from the same operative facts — namely, AMA's company-wide timekeeping practices, compensation policies, and meal and rest break practices as applied to its non-exempt, hourly workforce across its California operations.
Specifically, both actions challenge the same core set of employer policies and practices, including but not limited to:
(a) AMA's use of the NovaPay Solutions "TimeTrack Pro" electronic timekeeping system, and in particular the system's automatic meal period deduction feature, which plaintiffs in both actions allege systematically deducted thirty (30) minutes from employees' recorded work time each day regardless of whether the employee actually received a compliant, uninterrupted meal period;
(b) AMA's meal and rest break policies as applied across its seven (7) California production facilities and fourteen (14) show units, which plaintiffs in both actions allege failed to ensure that employees were relieved of all duties during meal and rest periods and failed to pay premium compensation when compliant breaks were not provided;
(c) Alleged off-the-clock work performed by production-support employees during pre-production and post-production periods, including time spent performing preparatory tasks before the start of scheduled shifts and completing wrap-up tasks after the end of scheduled shifts, for which plaintiffs in both actions allege no compensation was paid; and
(d) AMA's payroll practices and wage statement procedures, which plaintiffs in both actions allege resulted in inaccurate wage statements and the underpayment of wages owed.
Both actions require the determination of substantially identical questions of law and fact, including but not limited to the following:
(i) Whether AMA's auto-deduction policy, as implemented through the TimeTrack Pro timekeeping system, resulted in systematic underpayment for missed or shortened meal periods in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512;
(ii) Whether AMA provided its non-exempt employees with rest periods that complied with the requirements of California Labor Code Section 226.7 and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders;
(iii) Whether production-support employees were required or suffered or permitted to perform off-the-clock work during pre-production and post-production periods without compensation, in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, 1197, and 1197.1;
(iv) Whether the applicable IWC Wage Order — primarily IWC Wage Order No. 12 (Motion Picture Industry) — was complied with by AMA with respect to the payment of wages, the provision of meal and rest periods, and the maintenance of accurate time and payroll records;
(v) Whether AMA's wage statements accurately reflected all hours worked and all compensation earned by its non-exempt employees, as required by California Labor Code Section 226;
(vi) Whether AMA's conduct was willful within the meaning of California Labor Code Sections 201 through 203, thereby entitling separated employees to waiting time penalties; and
(vii) Whether AMA's alleged Labor Code violations constitute unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices within the meaning of the UCL.
The foregoing questions of law and fact are, in all material respects, identical in both actions. Resolution of these questions in one action will necessarily resolve or substantially inform the same questions in the other.
C. Substantial Duplication of Judicial Resources (Rule 3.300(a)(4))
If heard by different judicial officers, the Fuentes and Halloran actions would require substantial and unnecessary duplication of judicial resources. Among other things, parallel proceedings before different judges would entail:
(a) Duplicative discovery, including overlapping document production by AMA of the same categories of timekeeping records, payroll data, human resources policies, employee handbooks, production schedules, and corporate communications relevant to AMA's wage-and-hour practices across its California operations;
(b) Duplicative depositions of the same AMA corporate witnesses, including persons most qualified on topics such as timekeeping practices, meal and rest break policies, payroll processing, and the configuration and operation of the TimeTrack Pro system, as well as potential depositions of the same NovaPay Solutions representatives regarding the system's automatic deduction functionality;
(c) Duplicative expert proceedings, including the retention of the same or substantially similar damages experts, labor economics experts, and timekeeping/payroll system experts, and the submission of overlapping expert reports on identical issues;
(d) Duplicative class certification briefing, including substantially identical motions for class certification addressing the same commonality, typicality, numerosity, adequacy, and predominance issues with respect to the same putative class of approximately 1,850 employees;
(e) Duplicative motion practice on anticipated dispositive and procedural motions, including motions to compel arbitration (to the extent applicable), demurrers, motions for summary adjudication, and Daubert/Sargon challenges to expert testimony; and
(f) Duplicative trial proceedings, if the actions were to proceed to trial separately, which would require two judges and two juries (or two bench trials) to hear the same evidence and decide the same issues.
The risk of inconsistent rulings on identical legal and factual issues is significant. For example, if one judicial officer were to grant class certification in the Fuentes action while another were to deny class certification in the Halloran action — or if the two courts were to reach conflicting conclusions regarding the lawfulness of AMA's auto-deduction policy or the proper interpretation of IWC Wage Order No. 12 — the resulting inconsistency would undermine the interests of judicial economy, fairness, and the orderly administration of justice.
Assignment of both cases to the same judicial officer would eliminate these risks and permit the efficient and consistent adjudication of all claims.
V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Aurelius Media Americas Inc. respectfully requests that the Court:
1.  Determine that Case No. 22STCV39501 (Halloran v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.) is related to Case No. 22STCV38214 (Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.) within the meaning of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300;
2.  Assign Case No. 22STCV39501 to the same judicial officer assigned to, or to be assigned to, Case No. 22STCV38214 for all purposes; and
3.  Set the matter for a hearing on consolidation or, alternatively, enter an order relating the cases and directing counsel in both actions to meet and confer regarding a stipulation for consolidation of the two actions.
AMA respectfully notes that it intends to seek consolidation of the Fuentes and Halloran actions for all purposes pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1048, with Case No. 22STCV38214 (Fuentes v. Aurelius Media Americas Inc.) designated as the lead case. AMA anticipates that Plaintiffs' counsel, Castellano Byrne & Salas LLP — which represents the named plaintiffs in both actions — will not oppose consolidation, and AMA intends to confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding a potential stipulation to that effect in advance of any hearing on the matter.
*
Dated: November 28, 2022
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Devon Archer (SBN 301462) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 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, the undersigned, declare as follows:
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 777 South Flower Street, Suite 4200, Los Angeles, California 90017.
On November 28, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF RELATED CASE on the interested parties in this action by transmitting a true and correct copy via electronic service through the Court's electronic filing system and by electronic mail to the persons at the electronic mail addresses set forth below:
Marco Castellano, Esq. CASTELLANO BYRNE & SALAS LLP 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90025
Email: mcastellano@relitigationlitigation.com
(Counsel for Plaintiff Marisol Fuentes in Case No. 22STCV38214 and Counsel for Plaintiff Derek Halloran in Case No. 22STCV39501)
Sandra Higuera, Esq. VELTRANO EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP PC 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90071
Email: shiguera@ridgemontlaw.com
(PAGA Co-Counsel)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on November 28, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.
________________________________________
Jessica T. Moreno Litigation Paralegal CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
MARISOL FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, | Case No. 22STCV38214
Plaintiff, | NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
v. | [Filed pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.300]
AURELIUS MEDIA AMERICAS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.