This case was last updated from San Mateo County Superior Courts on 07/20/2018 at 08:18:28 (UTC).

CHRIS CHAN VS GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

Case Summary

On 10/12/2012 CHRIS CHAN filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. This case was filed in San Mateo County Superior Courts, Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records located in San Mateo, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Bergeron, Joseph E, Novak, Lisa A, Buchwald, Gerald J, Buchwald, Gerald J. and Novak, Lisa A.. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *****7312

  • Filing Date:

    10/12/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    San Mateo County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records

  • County, State:

    San Mateo, California

Judge Details

Judges

Bergeron, Joseph E

Novak, Lisa A

Buchwald, Gerald J

Buchwald, Gerald J.

Novak, Lisa A.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CHRIS CHAN

CHAN, CHRIS

Defendant

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LIPPS, DAVID C

Defendant Attorney

JOHNSRUD, BRIAN L

 

Court Documents

Document.

FILING (15) Comment FILED: PLTF'S RESPONSE TO DEFT'S SEPARATE STMNT OF MATERIAL FACTS REGARDING PLTF'S MOT. SUM ADJ. FILED.

Proof of Service by MAIL of.

PROOF OF SERVICE (9) Comment PSN3: PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF SEE LIST SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 10/25/13 FILED.

Proof of Service by PERSONAL SERVICE of.

PROOF OF SERVICE (7) Comment PSN2: PROOF OF SERVICE (PERSONAL) OF PLTF'S OPPOSITION SEPARATE STATEMENT, OBJECTIONS AND DECLARATIONS SERVED ON GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. WITH SERVICE DATE OF 10/17/13 FILED.

Conversion Action.

FILING (7) Comment OBJ: OBJECTION TO DEF'S EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMRY JUDGMENT FILED BY CHRIS CHAN

Conversion Action.

FILING (8) Comment OBJ: OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY LTF IN SUP OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY GILEAD SCIENCES INC.

Order.

ORDER (2) Comment O2: ORDER GRANTING IN PART/DENYING IN PARTY MOTION TO COMPEL SIGNED BY JUDGE BERGERON ON 04/24/13 FILED.

Proof of Service by MAIL of.

PROOF OF SERVICE (4) Comment PSN3: PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF SEE LIST SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 03/15/13 FILED.

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed.

MEMO (3) Comment MPA: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY GILEAD SCIENCES INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Proof of Service of Complaint/Petition.

PROOF OF SERVICE Comment PSS: PROOF OF SERVICE (SUB-SERVICE) OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OF CHAN AS TO GILEAD SCIENCES INC., BY SUB-SERVING BRETT A PLETCHER, AGENT. MAILING DATE OF 10/17/12.

Document.

FILING (16) Comment FILED: PLTF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFT'S EVIDENCE OFFERED BY DEFT IN OPPO TO PLTF'S MOT. FOR SUM. ADJ. FILED.

Document.

FILING (13) Comment FILED: DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ETC, FILED.

Order received.

PROPOSED ORDER Comment POR: PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

Document.

FILING (5) Comment FILED: DEFENDANT'S INDEX TO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MSJ/MSA VOLUME I, FILED.

Proof of Service.

PROOF OF SERVICE (5) Comment POSI: PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION SERVED ON BRIAN LEE JOHNSRUD BY HAND DELIVERY WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 08/09/13.

Notice.

NOTICE (6) Comment N2: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORD GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PA RT DEFT'S MOT TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FILED BY GILEAD SCIENCES INC..

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (6) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY CHRIS CHAN.

Notice.

NOTICE (4) Comment N: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION FILED BY CHRIS CHAN.

Proof of Service.

PROOF OF SERVICE (3) Comment POSI: PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ETC. SERVED ON RICHARD A. HOYER, ESQ. BY FED EX WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 02/20/13.

69 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/05/2013
  • Disposition: Judgment; Judgment Type; Judgment; Party; Name: GILEAD SCIENCES INC.; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT; Party; Name: CHAN, CHRIS; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment FFT: LITIGATION.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment FFT: NEITHER PARTY SHALL SEEK TO APPEAL THE JUDGMENT OR OTHERWISE PROCEED FURTHER WITH THIS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment FFT: SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES; AND 4)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment FFT: COMPLAINT IS HERBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ON THE MERITS; 3) THE PARTIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment FFT: TAKE NOTHING AGAINSTDEFENDANT ON HIS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; 2) THE SECOND AMENDED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment FFT: JUDGMENT IN THIS MATTER; 1) PLAINTIFF CHRIS CHAN SHALL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment FFT: JUDGMENT ON NOVEMBER 5 2013 THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE TO THE FOLLOWING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment FFT: IN LIGHT OF THE COURT HAVING GRANTED DEFENDANT GILEAD SCIENCES INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • View Court Documents
  • Conversion Action. Additional Info: JUDGMENT Comment SJE: STIPULATED JUDGMENT ENTERED AS FOLLOWS:

    Read MoreRead Less
347 More Docket Entries
  • 08/20/2013
  • Financial info for CHAN, CHRIS : Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2013
  • Financial info for CHAN, CHRIS : Case Payment Receipt # 201308090633 CHAN, CHRIS $30.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2013
  • Financial info for CHAN, CHRIS : Transaction Assessment $30.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2013
  • Financial info for CHAN, CHRIS : Case Payment Receipt # 201308090632 CHAN, CHRIS $500.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2013
  • Financial info for CHAN, CHRIS : Transaction Assessment $500.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2013
  • Financial info for CHAN, CHRIS : Case Payment Receipt # 201301280860 CHAN, CHRIS $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2013
  • Financial info for CHAN, CHRIS : Transaction Assessment $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2012
  • Financial info for CHAN, CHRIS : Case Payment Receipt # 201210160180 CHAN, CHRIS $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2012
  • Financial info for CHAN, CHRIS : Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2012
  • Financial: CHAN, CHRIS; Total Financial Assessment $1,045.00; Total Payments and Credits $1,045.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

BRIAN L. JOHNSRUD, State Bar No. 184474 | LINDSEY K. SCHROEDER, State Bar No. 245425 f

CURLEY, HESSINGER & JOHNSRUD LLP

[5)3? Lyltton Avenu%, 2" FloorAlto, CA 94301

Telephone: 650.617.3270 SAN MATEO COUNTY

Facsimile: 650.617.3269 AUG 2 2 2013

Attorneys for Defendant '

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ' |

CHRIS CHAN, Case No. CIV 517312 : Plaintiff, DEFENDANT GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.’S

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFE’S SECOND

V. AMENDED COMPLAINT ? GILEAD SCIENCES, INC,, j Defendant. FILE BY Fax

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Exempt Status) ; As a separate and affirmative defense, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred because at all times relevant to jthis action, Plaintiff and | 13488 : CASE NO. 517312

(Exempt Status) ; As a separate and affirmative defense, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred because at all times relevant to jthis action, Plaintiff and | 13488 : CASE NO. 517312 each PAGA Representative Action Member were and are exempt from s;tate overtime compensation requirements by virtue of their duties, including the exercise of discretion and independent judgment and the exemptions contained in the applicable wége and hour laws, including the “administrative™ and/or “computer professional” and/or “plrofessional” and/or “executive” exemptions. |

each PAGA Representative Action Member were and are exempt from s;tate overtime compensation requirements by virtue of their duties, including the exercise of discretion and independent judgment and the exemptions contained in the applicable wége and hour laws, including the “administrative™ and/or “computer professional” and/or “plrofessional” and/or “executive” exemptions. |

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE .

(Statute of Limitations) | |

As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Amet;ded Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of the PAGA Representative Action Members are barred in whole or part by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, including but not limited to under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 338(a) (first cause of action) and 340(a) (second and fourth causes of aqtion), Labor Code section 203E (b) (third cause of action), and Business and Professions Code section 17208 (fifth cause o]f action).

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to State a Claim)

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, fails to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ;

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ‘

(Failure to Exhaust PAGA Remedies) '

As a separate and affirmative defense, the fourth cause of action alleged in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is barred to the extent that Plaintiff and/or the PAGA Representative Action Members failed to exhaust administrative remedies under PAGAg.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1 | i +

(Separation of Powers Doctrine) As a separate and affirmative defense to the fourth cause of actiotn alleged in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, any award of penalties against Defendant is barred because an award of penalties against Defendant under PAGA would be an unconst:itutional violation of the

separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution.

13488 2 | CASE NO. CIV 517312

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Constitutional Right to Due Process and Equal Protection)

As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and each cause of action alleged therein, the imposition of statutory penalties and/jor proceeding with this action on a representative basis would violate Defendant’s rights, including the right to due process and equal protection, under both the United States and Californi;a Constitutions.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE |

(After-Acquired Evidence)

As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Amepded Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, to the extent during the course of this litigation Defendant acquires any evidence of wrongdoing by Plaintiff or a PAGA Representative Action Member, which wrongdoing would have materially affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s or that PAGA Representative Action Member’s relationship with Gilead, such after-acquired evidence shall bar claims for damages and penalties, or shall reduce such claims or damages or penalties, as provided by law.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Willful Conduct/Good Faith Reliance)

As a separate and affirmative defense, Plaintiff’s Second Amend;ed Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, is barred because even if Gilead engaged in the conduct alleged by Plaintiff, which allegations Gilead denies, such actions or failure to act were not willful, and Gilead acted in good faith conformity with, and reliance on, written administrative regulations, orders, rulings, approvals, opinions, and/or interpretations of applicable law.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unjust, Arbitrary and Oppressive, or Confiscatory Penalties) As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, neither Plaintiff nor the PAGA Representative Action Members

are entitled to recover any civil penalties because under the circumstances of this case, any such

13488 3 : CASE NO. CIV 517312

13488 3 : CASE NO. CIV 517312 recovery would be unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory, witl'ixin the meaning of California Labor Code Section 2699. |

recovery would be unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory, witl'ixin the meaning of California Labor Code Section 2699. |

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Setoff and Recoupment) |

As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Amerzlded Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, to the extent Plaintiff or any PAGA Repi'esentative Action Member has sustained any damages or is eligible to recover any penalty, although such is not admitted hereby or herein and is specifically denied, Defendant is entitléed under the equitable doctrine of setoff and recoupment to offset all obligations of the Plaintiff or any PAGA Representative Action Member owed to Defendant against any judgment that may be entered against Defendant. |

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Release Through Prior Settlement Agreement)

As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, to the extent that Plaintiff or any PAGA ’Representative Action Member entered into any individual settlement agreement, any such individual has released the claims alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. |

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Waiting Time Penalties) |

As a separate and affirmative defense, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 as to the PAGA Representative Action Members to the extent that no such penalties can continue after the commencement of an action for the penalties. |

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Control and Manageability) -

As a separate and affirmative defense, the fourth cause of action alleged in Plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint fails to the extent it asserts a representativé action, because a

representative action would lack control and manageability.

13488 4 ' CASENO.CIV517312

13488 4 ' CASENO.CIV517312 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS:E (Equitable Doctrines) 1 As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of the P:AGA Representative Action Members are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, accord and satisfaction, settlement, payment, and/or release.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS:E (Equitable Doctrines) 1 As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of the P:AGA Representative Action Members are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, accord and satisfaction, settlement, payment, and/or release.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Mitigate) l As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Arnefided Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, the monetary claims of Plaintiff and the PAGA Representative Action Members are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and th'e PAGA Representative Action Members have not appropriately or adequately mitigated their alleged injury and/or

damages.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Avoidable Consequences) | As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, Plaintiff and each PAGA Representative Action Member unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventative and corrective opportunities provided by Gilead or otherwise to avoid harm, including but not limited to failing to report alleged misclassification, alleged failure to pay overtime, and alleged denial of éccurate wage statements, and that reasonable use of such opportunities would have prevented some, if not all, of the alleged damages and/or penalties.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Prove Overtime) As a separate and affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s Second Ame:nded Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, Gilead alleges that Plaintiff and each PAGA Representative Action Member has been paid and has received all wages due by virtue of his/her employment,

that Plaintiff and each PAGA Representative Action Member cannot produce sufficient evidence

13488 S ' CASE NO. CIV 517312

13488 S ' CASE NO. CIV 517312 | to prove that he/she worked overtime, nor can Plaintiff or any PAGA Representative Action Member prove the amount and extent of the alleged overtime as a matte;r of just and reasonable inference, and Gilead can and has negated any reasonable inference to b:e drawn from Plaintiff’s evidence. | WHEREFORE, Gilead prays for an award as follows: 1. That Plaintiff and the PAGA Representative Action Merfibers take nothing by the Second Amended Complaint; ' 2. That judgment be entered against Plaintiff and the PAGA} Representative Action Members, and in favor of Gilead on all claims; I 3. That Gilead be awarded its attorneys’ fees under applicaBle law, including but not limited to Labor Code section 218.5; ' 4, That Gilead be awarded costs of suit herein; and S. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just ?nd proper. |

| to prove that he/she worked overtime, nor can Plaintiff or any PAGA Representative Action Member prove the amount and extent of the alleged overtime as a matte;r of just and reasonable inference, and Gilead can and has negated any reasonable inference to b:e drawn from Plaintiff’s evidence. | WHEREFORE, Gilead prays for an award as follows: 1. That Plaintiff and the PAGA Representative Action Merfibers take nothing by the Second Amended Complaint; ' 2. That judgment be entered against Plaintiff and the PAGA} Representative Action Members, and in favor of Gilead on all claims; I 3. That Gilead be awarded its attorneys’ fees under applicaBle law, including but not limited to Labor Code section 218.5; ' 4, That Gilead be awarded costs of suit herein; and S. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just ?nd proper. |

Dated: August 21, 2013 CURLEY, HESSINGER & JO

BRIAN L. JOHNSRU Attorneys for Defe GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

13488 6 : CASE NO. CIV 517312