SPURCHISE, Bar No. 245998 MEL M.C. COLE, Bar No. 293265 SEAN P. PIERS, Bar No. 305607 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. ELECTRONICALLY 333 Bush Street FILED 34th Floor ‘Superior Court of Cattfornia, San Francisco, CA 94104 come cae eee! Telephone: 415.433.1940 09/22/2017 Fax No. 415.399.8490 Clerk of the Court BY-VANESSA WO Deputy Ciork Attomeys for Defendant EAZE SOLUTIONS, INC. SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN (State Bar No. 310719) sliss@llrlaw.com LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 MATTHEW D. CARLSON (State Bar No. 273242) mearlson@llrlaw.com LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary St., Suite 201 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 630-2651 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Attomeys for Plaintiff DAKOTA QUIGLEY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DAKOTA QUIGLEY, on behalf of himself and | Case No.: CGC-16-550805 all others similarly situated, Hon. Mary E. Wi Dept. 305° Plaintiff, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT . STATEMENT oo . Date: September 29, 2017 ZE SOLUTIONS, INC., Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 305 Defendant. Case No. C 550805 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTPlaintiff Dakota Quigley (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Eaze Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Eaze”) hereby jointly submit their Joint Case Management Statement in advance of the Case Management Conference on September 29, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. A. Factual Background and Statement of the Issues This class and representative action is premised on Plaintiff's allegation that Eaze has failed to classify drivers that provide delivery of medical marijuana as Eaze employees under California Jaw. Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action arising from this alleged misclassification, including 1.) a class claim for reimbursement (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802); 2.) a class claim for failure to pay overtime wages (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, 1998, and Wage Order No. 9); 3.) a class claim for failure to furnish accurate wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226); 4.) a class claim for failure to keep accurate payroll records (Cal. Lab, Code § 1174); 5.) a class claim for failure to pay wages when due (Cal. Lab, Code §§ 201-203); 6.) a representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”}; and 7.) a class claim for unlawful business practices (Cal. Lab. Code § 17200, et seg.). Plaintiff also asserts a claim not based on misclassification for 8.) breach of contract arising from Eaze’s alleged failure to pay putative class members promised incentive payments. Plaintiff believes discovery to date shows that Eaze drivers are, under California law, Eaze employees, entitled to protections under the California Labor Code, and that Eaze has failed to pay an identifiable group of Eaze drivers promised incentive payments. Eaze denies all of Plaintiff's allegations, including that the drivers provided services on Baze’s behalf Eaze’s position is that if Plaintiff was employed by anyone, it was Santa Cruz Mountain Farms (“SCME”) ~ the medical marijuana dispensary that paid Plaintiff and determined various aspects of his day-to-day activities, As a result, Defendant demurred to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on grounds that SCMF is a necessary and indispensable party. The demurrer was overruled without prejudice ‘The Court has also granted Plaintif’s Motion Re: Scope of Discovery, thereby permitting discovery conceming Eaze’s relationships with drivers alleged to be Eaze employees throughout the State. 1 Case No. CGC-16-550805 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTus of the Case The parties have engaged in substantial discovery. Plaintiff has propounded three sets of document requests, two sets of interrogatories, and one set of requests for admission. Eaze has responded to all written discovery. Eaze has produced thousands of documents pursuant to Plaintiff's document requests, including thousands of emails produced after an agreed upon “keyword search.” Plaintiff is in the process of reviewing the results of the keyword search. Plaintiff took the deposition of Eaze’s person most qualified regarding 17 topics (the eighteenth topic, regarding Eaze’s financial condition, has been deferred to a later date). Eaze has taken the deposition of Plaintiff. Eaze has also produced its contracts with dispensaries in the State pursuant to the Court’s Order on Plaintiff's Motion Re: Scope of Discovery. Plaintiff has responded to and produced documents pursuant to Eaze’s two sets of| document requests, and Plaintiff will be deposed on Friday, June 23, 2017. Discovery to date has been focused on liability and class certification issues. Defendant has asserted that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery regarding damages and/or penalties, and Plaintif?. has agreed to defer said discovery until after an order on class certification. Just before the prior CMC before this Court, the Parties agreed to stay proceedings (except for resolving certain issues arising from Eaze’s discovery responses and keyword search) and pursue mediation. That mediation is scheduled for October 18, 2017. Eaze is currently preparing putative class information to produce to Plaintiff's counsel to further mediation efforts. In light of this agreement, the Parties have not engaged in any further formal discovery (other than as described above) and are instead focusing their efforts on mediation. C. Status of, iscovery See above. D. Anticipated Motions Should mediation be unsuccessful, Plaintiff anticipates filing a motion for class certification In the same vein, Defendant wishes to reserve its right to file a motion for summary judgment or adjudication as to the named Plaintiff Dakota Quigley 2 Case No. CGC-16-550805 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT1 E. Suggestions for Case Management The Parties respectfully request that the Court continue the September 29, 2017 CMC to a 3 || date after the October 18, 2017. Defense counsel will be working from outside the country from 4 |] October 19, 2017 through the week of Thanksgiving. As a result, Defense counsel requests the 5 || next CMC be scheduled after November 27, 2017, if at all possible. 6 Plaintiff's counsel is currently available for a CMC during the week of November 27 any 7 || time on November 28, 29, or 30, or the afternoon of Friday, December 1. Defendant's counsel is 8 || also available on those dates, with the exception of the morning of November 30. 9 F. Other Matters 10 None, a 12 || DATED: September 22, 2017 LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 13 By: /s/ Matthew D. Carlson 14 Matthew Carlson (SBN 273242) Michael L. Freedman (SBN 262850) 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff 16 || DATED: September 22, 2017 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. " isi Mel. M.C. Col 18. MEL M.C. COLE (SBN 293265) Attorneys for Defendant Eaze Technologies, Inc. 19 20 Fie 180136895.2 88609001 21 rei _ 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No. CGC-16-550805 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT