Professional Documents
Culture Documents
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page2 of 14
12
13 Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in accordance with the
14 Standing Order for All Judges in the Northern District of California, the parties in this matter hereby
15 submit this Joint Case Management Statement.
16 1. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE
17 The basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims is federal question
18 jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)).
19 There are no parties that remain to be served except to the extent that Plaintiffs identify DOE
20 defendants.
21 2. FACTS
22 (a) Plaintiffs’ Chronology of the Facts
23 Plaintiffs Ashanka Stagg, Damian Sequoia, Lucian Balmer and Sundari Michaelian
24 worked a collective 62 years at Defendants’ vegetarian Ananda Fuara Restaurant in San Francisco.
25 Two of the four Plaintiffs are over 60, one is in her late 50s and one is in his 20s. Plaintiffs worked
26 in the restaurant in various capacities either as servers, bakers, dish washers, or preparers of food.
27
28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page3 of 14
1 Besides working at the Ananda Fuara Restaurant, Plaintiffs also were followers of the
2 teachings of Chinmoy Kumar Ghose and members of a spiritual group called the Sri Chinmoy
3 Centre, a named defendant in this action. Each of the Plaintiffs was assigned by Ghose to work at
4 his enterprise business, the Ananda Fuara Restaurant. The Plaintiffs were promised by Defendants
5 that they would have a job at the restaurant as long as they wanted to work.
7 continuing to pay former employees when they became too old or infirm to continue working.
8 Plaintiffs had the expectation that Defendants would likewise continue to pay them when they
9 became too old or infirm to continue working. In agreeing to work for Defendants under these
10 conditions, each of the Plaintiffs gave up opportunities to pursue other gainful employment.
12 Plaintiffs each received from Defendants a fixed weekly stipend that never amounted to more than
13 $150.00 per week. The stipends bore no relationship to the actual number of hours each Plaintiff
14 worked. As a result, Plaintiffs were not paid minimum wages or overtime wages in conformity with
15 the rates set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the California Labor Code, the San
16 Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance or Wage Order 5-2001. The Plaintiffs also were required by
17 Defendants to relinquish the tips they collected from the customers of the restaurant and give the tip
18 money to Defendants.
19 Between November 6, 2009 and January 23, 2010, each of the Plaintiffs was
20 terminated from employment by Defendants because the Plaintiffs discussed allegations that
21 appeared on the Internet that Ghose had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with several female
22 members of the Sri Chinmoy Centre. Some of the allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct
23 against Ghose came from a female former Ananda Fuara Restaurant employee, who was known to
24 the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that their termination under these circumstances violated Labor Code
25 § 232.5, which protects employees who disclose information about the conditions at their work.
26 Since their termination, the Plaintiffs have not succeeded in obtaining full-time
28 //
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 3. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page4 of 14
3 Ms. Hoffmann owns and operates the Ananda Fuara Restaurant (the "Restaurant") in
4 San Francisco, and operates the Restaurant as a dba. As addressed in the Restaurant's web site, the
5 Restaurant is a Sri Chinmoy divine enterprise that specializes in vegetarian and vegan cuisine. The
7 Plaintiffs were for the most part long-term employees at the Restaurant. None of the
8 employees at the Restaurant had an oral or written contract of employment. Plaintiffs were
9 compensated in cash payments, food, travel reimbursements, other expense reimbursements, and
10 payment of some medical expenses. They also shared in the tip pool.
11 Plaintiff Stagg's employment was terminated; although there was no contract for
12 employment, her employment was terminated with good cause, for legitimate, non-pretextual
13 business reasons. The other three plaintiffs resigned their employment voluntarily; two of these
14 plaintiffs received $1000 in severance pay. The Restaurant and Hoffman deny that Plaintiff Stagg
15 was terminated for improper reasons, and deny that they have violated California Labor Code §
17 Plaintiffs received tips while working at the Restaurant. Although tips were pooled at
18 the Restaurant, management did not share in the proceeds of the tipping pool.
21 corporation incorporated in 1970 pursuant to the Religious Corporation Law of the State of New
22 York, with its principal place of worship located in Jamaica, New York. The purpose of the Sri
23 Chinmoy Centre is to offer its members a path for achieving oneness with God consonant with the
24 teaching of Sri Chinmoy Kumar Ghose, who died October 11, 2007. Sri Chinmoy Centre is exempt
25 from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Sri Chinmoy Centre
26 currently has no employees and to date has only had one employee: Sri Chinmoy Kumar Ghose
28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 4. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page5 of 14
1 Defendant Sri Chinmoy Society, Inc. (“Sri Chinmoy Society”) is a not for profit
2 corporation that was formed in April 2003 under New York’s Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. Sri
3 Chinmoy Society, operating under the assumed name “Vasudeva Server”, ran and operated web-
4 hosting and email services as well as Wi-Fi Nodes. After the passing of Sri Chinmoy, all intellectual
5 property of Sri Chinmoy Society was transferred to Sri Chinmoy Centre. Vasudeva Server currently
6 is maintained as a project by Sri Chinmoy Centre and hosts and administers Sri Chinmoy Centre
7 related websites and email services. Sri Chinmoy Society has no current operations and has never
9 Although Plaintiffs have been members of Sri Chinmoy Centre, their membership is
10 independent of any employment relationship with Defendant Ananda Fuara Restaurant (“Ananda
11 Fuara”). Sri Chinmoy Centre is informed and believes that Defendant Garima Hoffman is the sole
12 owner of Ananda Fuara. Neither Sri Chinmoy Centre nor Sri Chinmoy Society have had or
13 exercised any control over the day to day operations of Ananda Fuara nor have they ever had any
15 Neither Sri Chinmoy Centre nor Sri Chinmoy Society have information regarding the
16 day to day operation of Ananda Fuara, including but not limited to, the hours and working conditions
17 of Plaintiffs.
18 (c) Plaintiffs’ and Defendants Ananda Fuara Restaurant's and Garima Hoffman's
23 Defendants.
26 (4) Whether Plaintiffs were paid minimum wages for all hours they worked and
28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 5. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page6 of 14
1 (5) Whether Plaintiffs worked more than eight (8) hours in a single workday or
2 forty (40) hours in a single workweek and/or worked hours on the seventh (7th) consecutive day of
4 (6) Whether there was a tip pooling agreement to distribute tips collected from
6 (7) Whether Plaintiffs missed rest breaks and if so, how many.
8 (9) Whether any failure to pay Plaintiffs all wages due at the time of their
11 (d) Defendants’ Sri Chinmoy Centre's and Sri Chinmoy Society's Statement of the
13 (1) Whether Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society had any employment
15 (2) Whether Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society exercised any control
16 over the day to day operations of Ananda Fuara Restaurant, including but not limited to wages, hours
18 (3) Whether Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society took any adverse
22 (1) Whether Defendants were joint employers and therefore have joint liability to
23 Plaintiffs under the standards set forth in Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 and by the
25 (2) Whether Defendants breached the terms of the oral, implied and written
28 Defendants such that Defendants are estopped from denying those promises.
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 6. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page7 of 14
4 violated Labor Code §§ 201, 203, 351, 226, 226.7, 510, 1194, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197-1199, 2698 et
5 seq.; FLSA §§ 206, 207; San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, Chap. 12R, San Francisco
6 Administrative Code; and Wage Order 5-2001, Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 8, § 11020, among other
8 (6) Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory penalties under the Labor Code, the
10 (7) Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to penalties under Labor Code § 2698 et seq.
12 17200 et seq.
14 wages, tips and compensation as part of an intentional and deliberate scheme to maximize profits at
18 (a) Whether Plaintiffs' Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be
21 or whether any recovery by Plaintiffs must be reduced by their failure to mitigate any alleged
22 damages.
26 actions taken by Defendants Restaurant and Hoffmann with respect to matters of religion are
27 protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and equivalent state law protections.
28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 7. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page8 of 14
2 damages are barred under any or all of the affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants Ananda
5 basis for punitive damages, and whether punitive damages are recoverable under the California and
6 U.S. Constitutions.
8 (a) Whether Sri Chinmoy Centre and Sri Chinmoy Society are or were
9 joint-employers of Plaintiffs.
11 Chinmoy Centre in furtherance of its spiritual mission can be considered evidence of an employment
13 (c) Whether the First Amendment protects Sri Chinmoy Centre from
15 mission.
17 Ghose in furtherance of his spiritual mission are binding on Sri Chinmoy Centre in connection with
23 Garima Hoffman in her role as a member and trustee of Sri Chinmoy Centre and her status as owner
25 4. MOTIONS
27 (1) Plaintiffs may file a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment depending on the
28 evidence obtained.
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 8. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page9 of 14
1 (2) Defendants Sri Chinmoy Society, Inc. and Sri Chinmoy Centre anticipate
3 (3) Defendants Ananda Fuara Restaurant and Garima Hoffman anticipate filing a
5 The parties stipulate to extend the deadline set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-2(a) to
6 provide that any party filing a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Motion for Summary
7 Judgment will file the motion at least 42 days before the hearing date.
8 5. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
9 The parties do not presently anticipate the need to amend the pleadings. Prior to the
10 preparation of this Joint Case Management Conference Statement, Plaintiffs amended the Complaint
11 to add a cause of action under Labor Code § 2699 et seq. after administratively exhausting with the
12 Labor Workforce and Development Agency. Plaintiffs also dismissed without prejudice defendant
13 Garima, Inc.
14 6. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
15 The parties represent that reasonable steps have been taken to preserve evidence relevant to
16 the issues in this case, including the taking of steps to prevent the loss or destruction of potentially
17 relevant evidence. At this early stage, the parties do not anticipate discovery issues regarding
18 electronic documents and/or protected material. The parties agree to meet and confer as such
21 The parties have agreed to serve their respective initial disclosures by email, personal
23 8. DISCOVERY
24 The parties have not taken any discovery to date. In addition to the exchange of initial
25 disclosures, the parties anticipate completing written discovery, document productions and
26 depositions.
27 Discovery is anticipated on the following subjects: (1) Whether Defendants Sri Chinmoy
28 Society, Inc. and Sri Chinmoy Centre were joint employers with Defendants Ananda Fuara
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 9. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page10 of 14
1 Restaurant and Garima Hoffman; (2) the terms under which Plaintiffs were employed by
2 Defendants; (3) whether Defendants made promises to Plaintiffs about employment by Defendants;
3 (4) the reasons for Defendants’ termination of Plaintiffs’ employment; (5) the number of hours
4 Plaintiffs worked for Defendants and the amount of compensation they received for that work; (6)
5 the amount of payroll taxes withheld and paid by Defendants on Plaintiffs’ behalf; (7) the amount of
6 tips collected each day by Defendants and distributed to their employees; (8) the amount of tips paid
7 by Defendants to Plaintiffs; (9) whether Plaintiffs missed rest breaks and if so, how many; (10)
8 whether Plaintiffs failed to receive wage statements; (11) whether any failure to pay Plaintiffs all
9 wages due at the time of their termination from employment was willful; (12) the allegations set
10 forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and First Amended Complaint and Defendants’ defenses; and (13)
12 All non expert discovery should be completed by July 8, 2011. All expert discovery should
13 be completed by August 26, 2011. The parties agree that discovery should not be conducted in
14 phases and should not be limited or focused upon any particular issue. The parties agree that no
15 changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed by the FRCP, with the exception of
16 FRCP 30. The parties stipulate that the provisions of FRCP 30(d)(2), which limit the length of a
17 deposition to one day of seven hours, will not apply with respect to the depositions of Plaintiffs
18 Ashanka Stagg, Damian Sequoia, Lucian Balmer, Sundari Michaelian and Defendant Garima
19 Hoffman and Ashrita Furman, Treasurer and a Trustee of Sri Chinmoy Centre. Instead, each
20 Plaintiff will be deposed for two days, seven hours each day, over the course of two consecutive
21 business days, to enable each of Defendants’ lawyers to spend one day of seven hours deposing each
22 Plaintiff. Plaintiffs will depose Garima Hoffman and Ashrita Furman for two days, seven hours each
23 day, over the course of two consecutive business days. The parties agree to participate in initial
25 9. CLASS ACTION
27 //
28 //
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 10. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page11 of 14
2 There are no related cases or proceedings pending before another Judge of this Court or
4 11. RELIEF
5 Plaintiffs:
6 Without the benefit of discovery or wage statements, plaintiffs are currently preparing
7 preliminary calculations of the unpaid wages, misappropriated tips, and lost earnings they claim for
8 the period prior to their terminations from employment. These calculations will be ready in time to
9 be included in plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures. The category of damages which plaintiffs will be
11 1. Damages for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 1194,
12 1194.2, 1197, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206, the San Francisco Minimum
13 Wage Ordinance, Chap. 12 R, San Francisco Administrative Code and Wage Order 5-2001, Cal.
15 2. Damages for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 510,
16 1194(a), 1198, 1199, FLSA § 207, the San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, Chap. 12 R, San
17 Francisco Administrative Code and Wage Order 5-2001, Cal. Code Regs, Tit. 8, § 11020;
18 3. One (1) hour of premium pay for each workday in which a rest period was not
22 5. All applicable statutory penalties available under the California Labor Code;
23 6. All applicable civil penalties for violations as enumerated under the California Labor
25 7. Restitutionary disgorgement of wages and tips and injunctive relief for violation of
26 the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.;
3 The parties agree to participate in mediation after initial discovery has taken place.
5 Defendants are not willing to consent to have a Magistrate Judge conduct all further
6 proceedings in this matter and have so indicated by filing a Declination to Proceed Before
9 The parties agree that this case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration or any other
10 reference.
12 The parties believe that a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment may narrow issues.
14 The parties do not believe that this is the type of case that can be handled on an expedited
16 17. SCHEDULING
17 The parties submit the following schedule to this Court in relation to discovery, motions,
28 //
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 12. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page13 of 14
1 18. TRIAL
2 Plaintiffs have requested a jury trial. The expected length of trial is 10 court days.
4 All parties have filed the “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” required by Civil
5 Local Rule 3-16, and have indicated that there are no non-party interests to report.
7 The parties are amenable to discussing with one another, and with the Court, any other
8 matters that may facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this matter.
11 ________________/s/_____________________
Moira C. McQuaid
12 LAW OFFICES OF MOIRA C. MCQUAID
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13 ASHANKA STAGG, DAMIAN SEQUOIA,
LUCIAN BALMER and SUNDARI
14 MICHAELIAN
Dated: October 15, 2010
15
16
________________/s/____________________
17 James Diamond
GOLDFARB LIPMAN
18 Attorneys for Defendants
ANANDA FUARA RESTAURANT, GARIMA,
19 INC. AND GARIMA HOFFMAN
20 Dated: October 15, 2010
21
22 _______________/s/_____________________
Michael F. McCabe
23 LITTLER MENDELSON
A Professional Corporation
24 Attorneys for Defendants
SRI CHINMOY SOCIETY, INC. and
25 SRI CHINMOY CENTRE
26
27 Firmwide:98090855.1 065769.1001
28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 13. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940
Case3:10-cv-02768-JSW Document26 Filed10/15/10 Page14 of 14
3 I, Michael F. McCabe, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
4 Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order. In compliance with General Order 45,
5 X.B., I hereby attest that Moira McQuaid, Esq., and James Diamond have read and approved this
6 Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order and consent to its filing in this action.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LIT T LE R ME NDE LSO N
A P R O F E S S I ON A L C O RP O R AT I O N
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
650 C a lifornia Stre e t
20th F loor STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 14. CASE NO. CV 10-02768 JSW
Sa n F ra ncisco, C A 94108. 2693
415. 433. 1940