Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/20/2021 at 18:32:17 (UTC).

JAMIE LUNDE ET AL VS FARMERS GROUP INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/24/2014 JAMIE LUNDE filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against FARMERS GROUP INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RAFAEL A. ONGKEKO and TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3659

  • Filing Date:

    04/24/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RAFAEL A. ONGKEKO

TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

CRAWFORD BARBARA

HEDGECOCK AMANDA

LUNDE JAMIE

ABRAMS ROBERT

BALATA PETER

BALDINO LEO

BARNES-GRODSKY JENNIFER

BECHWHITE TIFFANY

BRESLAU MARVIN

BROWN HAROLD

CALLOWAY FRED

CLAIRDAY SUSAN

COLEMAN CHRISTINE

CUSTODIO LEO

DAVIS CASSAUNDRA

DELUCA PHILIP

DEMEYER DANIELLE

DIAZ SAUL

DIZON EMMANUEL

FERNANDEZ HENRY

93 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SHENOI KOES LLP

APPELL SHAPIRO LLP

THE LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. BERNARDO

Other Attorneys

CVETON KYLE ESQ.

KUN MICHAEL S. ESQ.

MANNING CORY E.

PALEY ANDREW M. ESQ.

KVETON KYLE ESQ.

BONONI LAW GROUP

NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP

 

Court Documents

Joinder - JOINDER DEFENDANT FARMERS GROUP, INC.S JOINDER TO DEFENDANT ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANYS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

8/3/2020: Joinder - JOINDER DEFENDANT FARMERS GROUP, INC.S JOINDER TO DEFENDANT ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANYS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

9/7/2018: JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Brief - BRIEF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

8/9/2019: Brief - BRIEF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

7/16/2014: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

DEFENDANT ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY?S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS? FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

7/24/2014: DEFENDANT ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY?S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS? FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

ANSWER

7/25/2014: ANSWER

DEFENDANT FARMERS GROUP, INC.?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

8/21/2014: DEFENDANT FARMERS GROUP, INC.?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

COMPLEX CASE NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND VERIFIED APPLICATION OF SARAH T. EIBLING TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR ADVANCED FIELD SERVICES, INC.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THE

8/22/2014: COMPLEX CASE NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND VERIFIED APPLICATION OF SARAH T. EIBLING TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR ADVANCED FIELD SERVICES, INC.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THE

COMPLEX CASE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS FARMERS, ALLSTATE AND CIS' REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ETC

9/18/2014: COMPLEX CASE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS FARMERS, ALLSTATE AND CIS' REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ETC

DEFENDANT ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL. NOTICE

9/24/2014: DEFENDANT ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL. NOTICE

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

3/3/2015: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Minute Order -

7/10/2015: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

6/24/2016: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

8/24/2016: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF (1) RULING DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL IN MCLEERY AND IN LUNDE ETC.

8/26/2016: NOTICE OF (1) RULING DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL IN MCLEERY AND IN LUNDE ETC.

Minute Order -

5/1/2017: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

7/11/2017: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

166 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/27/2021
  • Hearing04/27/2021 at 13:30 PM in Department 49 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Further Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2021
  • DocketNotice (OF REPRESENTATION OF SERGIO REYES ORTIZ); Filed by Jamie Lunde (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • Docketat 3:24 PM in Department 49; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketOrder (Ruling on Submitted Matter); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 01/19/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2021
  • DocketOrder Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Jamie Lunde (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2021
  • DocketOrder Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Jamie Lunde (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2021
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFFS? COUNSEL?S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS); Filed by Jamie Lunde (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Farmers Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
320 More Docket Entries
  • 06/04/2014
  • DocketJoinder; Filed by Jamie Lunde (Plaintiff); Amanda Hedgecock (Plaintiff); Barbara Crawford (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2014
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2014
  • DocketCOMPLEX CASE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF JOINDER OF PARTIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2014
  • DocketCOMPLEX CASE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF JOINDER OF PARTIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2014
  • DocketJoinder; Filed by Jamie Lunde (Plaintiff); Amanda Hedgecock (Plaintiff); Barbara Crawford (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2014
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jamie Lunde (Plaintiff); Amanda Hedgecock (Plaintiff); Barbara Crawford (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2014
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by Jamie Lunde (Plaintiff); Amanda Hedgecock (Plaintiff); Barbara Crawford (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2014
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2014
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. UNPAID WAGES AND FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC543659    Hearing Date: January 05, 2021    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Jamie Lunde, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.

BC543659

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Farmers Group, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: January 5, 2021

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

Motions to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party: Counsel Shenoi Koes LLP, Appell Shapiro, Stephen Benardo APC

Responding Party: none

Ruling: Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel is granted as to plaintiffs Stacy Baiata and Sergio Reyes Ortiz, and denied without prejudice as to the remainder.

Shenoi Koes LLP, Appell Shapiro, and Stephen Benardo APC, counsel for Plaintiffs Stacy Baiata, Harold Brown, Vikci Lozano, Sergio Reyes Ortiz, Alexander Ruiz, and Timothy Schlenz, move to be relieved as counsel of record. Counsel submit a single motion to which they attach six sets of forms required by California Rules of Court rule 3.3162. Therefore, in lieu of filing and serving six separately noticed motions and paying six filing fees, Counsel submits one set of moving papers, and paid only one filing fee. This is improper. “[P]ayment of filing fees is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” (Hu v. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1269.)

Nevertheless, Counsel has fulfilled the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 3.3162 in the two sets of forms which pertain to plaintiffs Stacy Baiata and Sergio Reyes Ortiz. The declarations provide that Counsel has been unable to reach the named plaintiffs, but made efforts to confirm plaintiffs’ respective current addresses by calling the clients’ last known telephone number and by conducting Lexis Public Record searches. This effort demonstrates a reasonable attempt to confirm the plaintiffs’ current addresses.

However, as to plaintiffs Harold Brown, Alexander Ruiz, Timothy Schlenz, and Vicki Lozano, Counsel declares that it “has also learned that plaintiff is deceased and has attempted to identify plaintiff's executor.” (Motion, Exh. B, C, E, F, MC-052, § 2.) Attempts to call the known number or conduct public record searches for deceased clients do not suffice. Counsel does not declare as to what efforts were made to locate the personal representative of the deceased plaintiffs.

The motion to be relieved as counsel is granted as to living plaintiffs Stacy Baiata and Sergio Reyes Ortiz, and is denied without prejudice as to the decedents as set forth above. The order shall be granted upon the payment of one additional filing fee. Counsel is reminded that this order is not effective until Plaintiffs Stacy Baiata and Sergio Reyes Ortiz are served with a copy of the order and a proof of service filed with the Court.

Date: January 5, 2021

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Jamie Lunde, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.

BC543659

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Farmers Group, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: January 5, 2021

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint

Moving Party: All named Plaintiffs

Responding Party: Defendant Allstate Insurance Co., joined by Defendants CIS Group, LLC, Capital Personnel Services, and Farmers Group, Inc.

Ruling: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is tentatively denied. The court will entertain further arguments as to adding Briones as a plaintiff and the alter ego allegations against Stanley.

This matter came before the Court on August 13, 2020. The hearing was continued as the moving Plaintiffs failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 by not specifying when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations adding new defendant Michael Stanley were discovered. The Court ordered that such information was particularly relevant given the age of this action. Additionally, the Court ordered that Plaintiffs must explain when the facts were discovered that give rise to any changes sought with respect to the previously named plaintiffs.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs have agreed to remove allegations that Defendants Farmers and Allstate are jointly and severally liable with CIS under California Labor Code § 2753 for advising CIS to treat property inspectors as independent contractors.

Shenoi also declares that Plaintiffs now seek to add Mario Briones as a plaintiff in the proposed Third Amended Complaint because “Mario Briones signed a contingency fee contract with Plaintiffs’ counsel, but he was inadvertently omitted as a named Plaintiff.” (Supp Resp. 1:27-28.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiffs’ sole basis for now adding Briones is that counsel simply forgot to name him in the prior pleading.

On December 7, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted the aforementioned supplemental response. Counsel Allan A. Shenoi purports to declare as to the discovery of facts underlying the various allegations to be added against Michael Stanley.

First, as to the new Labor Code § 558.1 claim seeking additional damages, Plaintiffs assert that § 558.1 was enacted effective January 1, 2016, and any request pertaining thereto could not have been brought in the first or second amended complaints. Plaintiffs were unable to include this claim between January 1, 2016 and December 19, 2019 because there had been a stay of the entire case in place since October 1, 2014. However, this argument pertains solely as to Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages against Stanley and was present before the Court at the first hearing. As discussed below, this argument does not suffice to maintain newly discovered theories of relief against Stanley, nor does it correct the deficiencies identified by the Court at the prior hearing,

Second, as to the Labor Code § 2753 claim, Plaintiffs contend that it was not until November 2015 that a court addressed a specific issue permitting a § 2753 claim to be stated against an employee. Now, Plaintiffs seek to allege that Stanley was an employee as well as an employer. Plaintiffs explain that as the case was stayed from October 1, 2014, until December 19, 2019, they could not seek to amend earlier. Section 2753 was enacted in 2012, two years prior to the filing of this action. Plaintiffs contend that federal authority issued in 2015 clarified a novel theory which allows Plaintiffs to name Stanley as a defendant. (Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2015) 141 F.Supp.3d 974, 987.) First, said federal authority is not binding on this Court. Second, the Johnson language only “clarifies” § 2753 to rebut a novel argument raised by the defendants in that action. (Id.) Section 2753 provides that

(a) A person who, for money or other valuable consideration, knowingly advises an employer to treat an individual as an independent contractor to avoid employee status for that individual shall be jointly and severally liable with the employer if the individual is found not to be an independent contractor.

(b) This section does not apply to the following persons:

(1) A person who provides advice to his or her employer.

(2) An attorney authorized to practice law in California or another United States jurisdiction who provides legal advice in the course of the practice of law.

Shenoi does not declare any new facts which demonstrate that this theory could not have been brought against Stanley in the original complaint. On August 13, 2020, the Court specifically requested a declaration identifying when the facts underlying the new claims were discovered. For the second time, Plaintiffs have failed to do so.

Third, as to the new § Labor Code 558(a) and 1197.1 claims against Stanley, Shenoi declares that it was not until September 12, 2019, when the California Supreme Court issued an opinion clarifying that a PAGA claim was the only theory for relief under § 558. However, the supplemental response is devoid of information pertaining to the discovery of any facts which were unknown to name Stanley as a defendant in the original complaint.

Finally, as to Plaintiff’s allegations of alter ego, Plaintiffs argue that “Plaintiffs did not have reason to assert alter ego allegations against Stanley until late 2017, after reading Turman v. Superior Court (Nov. 29, 3 2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 969, 981.” (Supp Resp. 3:21-23.) Plaintiffs contend that the facts were discovered and alleged in Plaintiffs’ original complaint filed in the related McCleery case, so the “alter ego allegations and the facts giving rise to them are no surprise to Allstate, Farmers, CIS, PMG, and AEFS.” (Id. 5:2-3.)

On December 14, 2020, Defendants submitted a supplemental opposition. Defendant Allstate notes that the declaration of Allan Shenoi—which was submitted as Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief in support of their motion—exceeds the five-page limit to the supplemental briefing ordered by the Court at the August 13, 2020 hearing because it is mostly single spaced and thus would likely equate to a ten-page double-spaced brief. Indeed, Shenoi submits a five-page single-spaced declaration detailing when the purported additional facts were discovered. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.108, “the lines on each page must be one and one-half spaced or double-spaced and numbered consecutively.” The single-spaced format of Shenoi’s declaration has allowed for more briefing to be presented to the Court than permissible pursuant to rule 2.108 and in accordance with this Court’s prior ruling. Nevertheless, the Court has considered Plaintiffs’ counsel’s supplemental declaration in full.

Defendants argue that it is now clear that Plaintiffs have no basis for alleging an alter ego theory after litigating McCleery for ten years. Indeed, while Shenoi references authority which were published during the stay of this matter, the declaration is again devoid of specifics pertaining to when facts were discovered which would form the basis of the new allegations. In their initial motion, Plaintiffs argued that “Plaintiffs’ alter ego theory of recovery is not novel or untested in a wage and hour action,” and that “Turman does not make new law: it is a reaffirmation of the low pleading requirement for alter ego.” (Motion 2:24-25, 4:12-13.) Therefore, Plaintiffs are arguing in this supplemental response that Turman is new authority forming the basis for their TAC, but explicitly argued in their motion that Turman is not new law. It is unclear how Shenoi is then able to declare that “Plaintiffs did not have reason to assert alter ego allegations against Stanley until late 2017, after reading Turman v. Superior Court . . .,” when simultaneously asserting that Turman merely reinforces the principal that there is a low pleading requirement for alter ego theory. (Supp Resp. 3:22-23.)

If Plaintiffs cannot set forth any new facts, and are not relying on new law, then Plaintiffs have again failed to comply with the requirements of CRC 3.1324(b)(3) or (4) as to the alter ego allegations. The remainder of the new allegations pertain to civil penalties or interest, and do not allege a theory of liability underpinning the requests for relief against Michael Stanley. By way of this supplemental response, Plaintiffs have added nothing which was not considered by this Court at the prior hearing.

In addition, the Court requested that the parties meet-and-confer and clarify discrepancies regarding named plaintiffs in this action. However, the only attempt made in the supplemental declaration is a table entitled “When Plaintiffs Discovered Facts to Dismiss Seven Plaintiffs.” (Supp Resp. 1:12.) However, the table does not contain any such facts, but rather indicates the date when the named plaintiff or the estate of the named plaintiff signed written authorizations to be removed as plaintiffs.

Considering Plaintiffs’ failure to correct the deficiencies of the motion noted at the August 13, 2020 hearing and the additional reasons stated herein, the motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint is denied.

Date: January 5, 2021

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC543659    Hearing Date: August 13, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Jamie Lunde, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.

BC543659

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Farmers Group., et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: August 13, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint

Moving Party:  Plaintiffs Jamie Lunde, et al.

Responding Party:      Defendant Allstate Insurance CO., Joined by Defendants Cis Group, LLC, Capital Personnel Services, and Farmers Group, Inc.

Ruling: Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is continued to December 21, 2020 at 2 p.m. for the reasons set forth herein. The motion to be relieved as counsel, currently scheduled for December 3, 2020, is also continued to that date and time.

The court reserves December 21, 2020 at 2 p.m. for any defendant’s motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7.

“The discretionary power to allow amendments to the pleadings ‘in furtherance of justice’ must be exercised liberally at all stages of the proceeding by permitting those amendments which will facilitate the interests of justice and resolve all disputed issues.” (Edwards v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 172, 180.) Instances justifying the court’s denial of leave to amend are rare. (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642.)

A trial court may properly exercise its discretion in denying a proposed amendment where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is indicated. (Estate of Murphy (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 304, 311, as cited in Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

For example, denial of leave to amend was appropriate where the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint on the eve of trial, two years after the complaint was originally filed, did not give any explanation for leaving the claim out of the original complaint or bringing the request to amend so late, and allowing amendment would have prejudiced the opposing party. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-487.)

A motion for leave to amend must:

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must

be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if

any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if

any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

(1) The effect of the amendment;

(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4)  The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

The court notes that plaintiffs’ reply brief confuses rule 3.1324(b)(3) with (b)(4) by arguing that plaintiffs identified when the new facts were discovered by stating that the motion was not made earlier due to the stays in place in this court. Those are two separate issues. Stating why the motion was not brought earlier does not address when the facts were discovered.

The motion to be relieved as counsel, currently scheduled for December 3, 2020, is also continued to December 21, 2020 at 2 p.m.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Date: August 13, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KVETON KYLE

Latest cases represented by Lawyer PALEY ANDREW MARC

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KUN MICHAEL STUART