Pending - Other Pending
Contract - Other Contract
NANCY L. NEWMAN
OASIS MANAGEMENT LLC
TATE ASHLEY L.
BARTA ROBERT MARC
POOLE SHAFFERY & KOEGLE LLP
ROSOFF SCHIFFRES & BARTA
POOLE & SHAFFERY LLP
6/28/2019: Case Management Statement
6/28/2019: Case Management Statement
7/1/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE COMPLE...)
7/26/2019: Notice of Change of Firm Name
10/4/2019: Declaration - PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
10/4/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
10/4/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment
10/4/2019: Separate Statement - PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
11/25/2019: Status Report
11/27/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
12/4/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JOE SNELL ISO OPPOSITION TO MSJ
12/4/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ADH ISO OPPOSITION TO MSJ
12/4/2019: Separate Statement
12/4/2019: Objection - OBJECTION EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE ISO MSJ
12/4/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPOSITION TO MSJ
12/13/2019: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
12/13/2019: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
12/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE; PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT OASIS MANAGE...)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by OASIS MANAGEMENT, LLC (Plaintiff); Oasis Management, LLC (Cross-Defendant); Beny Alagem (Cross-Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by OASIS MANAGEMENT, LLC (Plaintiff); Oasis Management, LLC (Cross-Defendant); Beny Alagem (Cross-Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketBrief (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Oasis management, LLC and Cross-Defendant Beny Alagem's Settlement Conference Brief); Filed by OASIS MANAGEMENT, LLC (Plaintiff); Oasis Management, LLC (Cross-Defendant); Beny Alagem (Cross-Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketCross-Compl fld - Summons Issued; Filed by JOE SNELL (Cross-Complainant); JOE SNALL (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketAnswer to Complaint Filed; Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketCross-Compl fld - Summons Issued; Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by JOE SNALL (Defendant)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by OASIS MANAGEMENT, LLC (Plaintiff)[+] Read More [-] Read Less
DocketComplaint Filed[+] Read More [-] Read Less
Case Number: ****7881 Hearing Date: January 17, 2020 Dept: P
Oasis Management, LLC v. Joe Snell Case No. ****7881
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery Requests
Hearing Date: 1/17/2020
Plaintiff alleges defendant pilot breached his employment contract by collecting a salary from plaintiff while working for third parties. Plaintiff sought the production of documents related to work defendant performed for other companies. Defendant produced the requested documents, with information relating to his flight passengers redacted. Plaintiff seeks to compel production of unredacted documents.
A motion to compel further responses to a discovery demand must be noticed within 45 days of the service of the response. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ;2031.310. A unlike motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel actual compliance with a discovery request is not subject to any time limit. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ;2031.320, Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903.
Defendant argues this motion is untimely because it is a motion to compel further responses that was not noticed within 45 days of the discovery responses. Opp. at pgs. 4-5. Plaintiff argues this is a motion to compel under ;2031.320, so not subject to any statutory time limit. Defendant is correct.
Defendant objected to plaintiff’s discovery request on privacy and relevance grounds and produced documents that were redacted, for the stated purpose of protecting third-party passengers’ privacy. Plaintiff seeks production of unredacted documents, on the grounds that defendant’s objections are without merit. Resolution of the motion will depend on whether defendant’s objections are valid. The motion is therefore properly characterized as a motion to compel further responses under CCP ;2031.310. Neither party disputes that, if ;2031.310 applies, the motion was untimely. DENIED.
Case Number: ****7881 Hearing Date: December 18, 2019 Dept: P
Oasis Management, LLC v. Joe Snell, Case No. ****7881
Cross-Defendants’ Oasis/Alagem’s Motion for Summary Adjudication/Judgment as to First Amended Cross-Complaint
Hearing Date: 12/18/2019
Plaintiffs/cross-defendants Oasis Management and Beny Alagem sued former employee defendant/cross-complainant Snell, who was employed as a private pilot. Oasis alleges Snell breached his contract by working for other companies during his employment with Oasis. Snell cross-complained, alleging Oasis/Alagem failed to pay benefits, wages, and expenses due upon his termination. Oasis/Alagem move for summary judgment/adjudication.
Breach of Contract
As no breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing cause of action is alleged in the first amended cross-complaint, the court only addresses the breach of contract claim.
Alagem argues he cannot be personally liable for breaching the employment agreement because he was not a party. Snell acknowledges “[t]he contract was between Oasis Management and Snell.” The obligations of an LLC do not automatically become the debts of a member or manager. Cal. Corp. Code ;17703.04(a). As Alagem was not a party to the Oasis contract, he cannot be liable for breach solely based on his status as Oasis’ principal. GRANTED as to Alagem.
Oasis argues Snell breached the employment agreement by regularly flying regularly for companies and individuals other than Oasis/Alagem. Though Snell’s employment agreement does not contain an exclusivity provision, Snell acknowleges the agreement required him to be available to fly for Oasis/Alagem “at a moment’s notice.” Oasis compendium, Exhibit B to Barta declaration, pgs. 69:16-70:1. Oasis argues Snell’s flying for others rendered him unavailable to serve as a “pilot in waiting” and constitutes a material breach.
Snell argues he never accepted engagements that prevented him from flying for Alagem. Snell’s contracts with third party Ressler could be cancelled at any time if Oasis/Alagem needed him. Snell Separate Statement, para. 58. Snell states he informed both Alagem and his personal assistant on multiple occasions that he needed to accept other pilot work to maintain his flying license (per FAA flight-time requirements), and Alagem never objected. Snell Separate Statement, paras. 31-37. This, combined with the absence of an exclusivity provision, creates a triable issue of fact as to whether Snell’s acceptance of work outside the contract constituted a breach that excuses Oasis’ performance.
Even if Snell’s contract did not allow him to accept other engagements, Oasis never used or requested Snell’s services during the period of the contract. Snell Separate Statement, paras. 43-45. Any “loss of availability” was hypothetical and did not damage Oasis/Alagem. This creates a triable issue of fact as to whether Snell’s breach, if any, was material.
Oasis argues it is not obligated to pay severance, as Snell’s work for others constitutes “malfeasance or misfeasance in the performance of [his] duties.” There is a triable issue of fact as to whether Snell’s work for others constituted a breach of the contract. “Malfeasance,” as used in the contract, is not defined, and whether flying for others is malfeasance is a material issue of fact. DENIED.
Second Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Vacation Wages
When an employment contract provides for paid vacations, and an employee is terminated without having taken his vested vacation time, all vested vacation shall be paid as wages. Cal. Lab. Code ;227.3. Under Cal. Lab. Code ;558.1, a person acting on behalf of an employer can be liable as an employer for violations of ;203 of the California Labor Code. ;203 imposes penalties on employers who willfully fail to pay “any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits.” “Wages” includes unpaid vacation time. Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, 364.
Oasis argues Alagem is not liable for vacation wages, since Lab. Code ;227.3 is not one of the statutes listed in Lab. Code ;558.1. MSJ at pgs. 8-9. However, failure to pay vacation wages falls under ;203’s penalty provision for late wages to discharged employees. Since individual managers may be liable for ;203 penalties under ;558.1, Oasis’ argument that Alagem cannot be individually liable for vacation wages fails.
The contract provided for paid vacation. Oasis argues Snell only performed a week of actual labor during the contract term, so he was effectively “on vacation” the remainder of the term and is not entitled to vacation wages. The contract did not require Snell to perform specific labor, only to be available when needed. Neither Oasis nor Alagem ever contacted Snell to serve as pilot. There is a question of fact whether Snell was effectively “on vacation” throughout the contract period, or whether he was available to Alagem and Oasis at all relevant times, so was “working” (or able to work). DENIED.
Third Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Business Expenses
Cal. Lab. Code ;2802 requires an employer to reimburse an employee for “all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” When the disputed expense is a cell phone bill, the employer is only required to reimburse a “reasonable percentage” of the bill. Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1140.
The parties agree Snell was reimbursed for his entire cell phone bill for four years. The parties dispute whether Snell is entitled to reimbursement for additional calls made at the time of his termination. Oasis argues these calls cannot be attributed to Snell’s employment. The determination of reasonableness, as well as how much of the bill for Snell’s final month of employment can be reimbursed, is a question of fact. DENIED.
Fourth Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Timely Wages
Oasis argues Snell did not earn wages in March 2017, since he was flying for Ressler at that time. The evidence establishes a factual dispute as to whether Snell’s work for Ressler violated his contractual duties by making him “unavailable” to fly for Oasis/Alagem. Thus, whether plaintiff “earned” wages during March 2017 is a question of fact. DENIED.
Fifth Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices
Cal. Bus. and Profs. Code ;17200 prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” The failure to pay wages due and overtime constitutes a violation of California’s unfair business practice law. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1152. The only forms of relief available for an unfair competition law violation are injunctive relief and/or restitution. Id. at 1144.
Oasis argues Snell’s UCL claim fails because he is entitled to neither an injunction nor restitution. Korea Supply Co. held an employee may recover unpaid wages as restitution for an unfair business practice, since the wages represent “benefits in which the plaintiff has an ownership interest.” Id. at 1148. As Snell provided evidence he was not paid all the wages due, his UCL claim may proceed under a restitution theory. DENIED.
Summary judgment/adjudication is DENIED as to all causes of action against Oasis Management. Summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the first cause of action against Alagem and DENIED as to all other causes of action against him.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases