This case was last updated from San Mateo County Superior Courts on 09/17/2022 at 08:33:23 (UTC).

JOHN SAMPANG VS CFS INSURANCE SERVICES INC

Case Summary

On 08/30/2012 JOHN SAMPANG filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against CFS INSURANCE SERVICES 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 Cretan, Clifford V, Dylina, Steven L, Foiles, Robert D, Weiner, Marie S, CLIFFORD V. CRETAN, STEVEN L. DYLINA, ROBERT D. FOILES, MARIE S. WEINER, Dylina, Steven L., Weiner, Marie S. and Cretan, Clifford V.. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *****6382

  • Filing Date:

    08/30/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    San Mateo, California

Judge Details

Judges

Foiles, Robert D

Dylina, Steven L

Cretan, Clifford V

Dylina, Steven L.

Weiner, Marie S.

Cretan, Clifford V.

Weiner, Marie S

CLIFFORD V. CRETAN

STEVEN L. DYLINA

ROBERT D. FOILES

MARIE S. WEINER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SAMPANG, JOHN

Defendants

CFS INSURANCE SERVICES INC

CYPRESS CREMATION SERVICES INC

CYPRESS LAWN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

SPIVAK, DAVID

LAZEAR, ARTHUR W

MACK, MORGAN M

Defendant Attorneys

FULTON, NATALJA M

LEE, RACHEL J

 

Court Documents

Notice.

NOTICE Comment N: NOTICE OF RULINGS AND NOTICE OF CONTINUED CMC FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG.

Notice.

NOTICE (5) Comment N: NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG.

Substitution of Attorney as to.

ATTORNEY (2) Comment SAT: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FILED. FORMER ATTORNEY DAVID SPIVAK REMOVED AS TO JOHN SAMPANG AND REPLACED WITH ATTORNEY ARTHUR W LAZEAR.

Notice.

NOTICE (3) Comment N: NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG.

Summons Issued / Filed.

SUMMONS Comment S30IF: 30 DAY SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (5) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG.

Proof of Service by MAIL of.

PROOF OF SERVICE (5) Comment PSN3: PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1 SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 09/12/13 FILED.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (7) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG.

Document.

FILING (3) Comment FILED: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1 FILED.

Declaration.

DECLARATION OF STACY ROE FILED BY ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Comment DEC: DECLARATION OF STACY ROE FILED BY ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Notice.

NOTICE OF RELEASE OF ATTORNEYS' LIEN FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG. Comment N2: NOTICE OF RELEASE OF ATTORNEYS' LIEN FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG.

Notice.

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG. Comment N2: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG.

Document.

JUDGMENT & ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED. Comment FILED: JUDGMENT & ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, FILED.

Proof of Service by MAIL of.

PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF SEE LIST SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 04/17/15 F Comment PSN3: PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF SEE LIST SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 04/17/15 FILED.

Order received.

PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED. Comment POR: PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

Declaration.

DECLARATION OF STACY ROE Comment DEC: DECLARATION OF STACY ROE

Declaration.

DECLARATION OF ARTHUR W. LAZEAR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ETC Comment DEC: DECLARATION OF ARTHUR W. LAZEAR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION, ETC

Motion.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION ETC FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG Comment NM: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION, ETC FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG

126 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/04/2015
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDeclaration.; Additional Info: DECLARATION OF STACY ROE FILED BY ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Comment DEC: DECLARATION OF STACY ROE FILED BY ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2015
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice.; Additional Info: NOTICE OF RELEASE OF ATTORNEYS' LIEN FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG. Comment N2: NOTICE OF RELEASE OF ATTORNEYS' LIEN FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2015
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice.; Additional Info: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG. Comment N2: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER FILED BY JOHN SAMPANG.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2015
  • DispositionDisposition: Judgment; Judgment Type: Judgment; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To; SAMPANG, JOHN; Awarded Against; CFS INSURANCE SERVICES INC; CYPRESS CREMATION SERVICES INC; CYPRESS LAWN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION; Comment: JUDGMENT ENTERED 04/17/15 JUDGMENT ENTERED ON COMPLAINT OF SAMPANG FOR JOHN SAMPANG JUDGMENT ENTERED ON COMPLAINT OF SAMPANG AGAINST CFS INSURANCE SERVICES INC, CYPRESS CREMATION SERVICES INC, CYPRESS LAWN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION SEE JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED ON 4/17/15 FOR DETAILS OF JUDGMENT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2015
  • DocketConversion Minute.; Additional Info: Comment FFT: DETAILS OF JUDGMENT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2015
  • DocketConversion Minute.; Additional Info: Comment FFT: SEE JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED ON 4/17/15 FOR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2015
  • DocketConversion Minute.; Additional Info: Comment JAGD: JUDGMENT ENTERED ON COMPLAINT OF SAMPANG AGAINST CFS INSURANCE SERVICES INC CYPRESS CREMATION SERVICES INC, CYPRESS LAWN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2015
  • DocketConversion Minute.; Additional Info: Comment JFP: JUDGMENT ENTERED ON COMPLAINT OF SAMPANG FOR JOHN SAMPANG

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2015
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDocument.; Additional Info: JUDGMENT & ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED. Comment FILED: JUDGMENT & ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2015
  • DocketConversion Minute.; Additional Info: Comment LINE: =====================================

    Read MoreRead Less
328 More Docket Entries
  • 08/30/2012
  • FinancialFinancial info for SAMPANG, JOHN; Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2012
  • FinancialFinancial; SAMPANG, JOHN; Total Financial Assessment $1,875.00; Total Payments and Credits $1,875.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2012
  • DocketCause Of Action.; Additional Info: Action Complaint File Date 08/30/2012

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCase File Digitization Public.; Additional Info: Case File Digitization Public Volume 002 Comment Volume 002

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCase File Digitization Public.; Additional Info: Case File Digitization Public Volume 001 Comment Volume 001

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2012
  • DocketNew Filed Case.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet.; Additional Info: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED Comment CCS: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSummons Issued / Filed.; Additional Info: 30 DAY SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED. Comment S30IF: 30 DAY SUMMONS, ISSUED AND FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2012
  • DocketConversion Minute.; Additional Info: Comment *FEE: 120830-0210-CK 194/ 435.00 PAYMT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketComplaint.; Additional Info: (S) COMPLAINT FILED Comment COM: (S) COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PaLo ALTO

MELINDA S. RIECHERT, State Bar No. 65504 | JENNIFER A. TOMLIN, State Bar No. 261220 FILEDB

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP SAN MATEO COUNTY 2 Palo Alto Square _ 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700 0CT 2 2 2012

Palo Alto, CA 94306

Tel: 650.843.4000 - | \A LO) } %fi* Clerk of perjor Fax: 650.843.4001 }A By f mriechert@morganlewis.com . jtomlin@morganlewis.com ‘

Attorneys for Defendant CFS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

JOHN SAMPANG, on behalf of himself and Case No. CIV 516382 all others similarly situated as an "aggrieved employee” on behalf of other "aggrieved DEFENDANT CFS INSURANCE employees" under the Labor Code Private SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO Attorneys General Act of 2004, PLAINTIFF JOHN SAMPANG’S . COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Action Filed: August 30, 2012 VS. Trial Date: None Set

CFS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC,, a

California corporation; CYPRESS

CREMATION SERVICES, INC., a California

corporation; CYPRESS LAWN CEMETERY - 7 ASSOCIATION, a California corporation and Yy = BOA

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

~ Defendants.

Defendant CFS Insurance Services, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant™) hereby responds to the unverified Class Action Complaint of Plaintiff John Sampang (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on file herein, as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant denies, generally and specifically, each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s unverified Class Action Complaint (“the Complaint™). Defendant further generally and specifically denies that Plaintiff

has been damaged in the sums alleged, or any other sum, or at all, by reason of any act or DB2/ 23530305.2 1 Case No. CIV 516382

DEFENDANT CFS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JOHN SAMPANG’S

DEFENDANT CFS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JOHN SAMPANG’S omission to act on the part of Defendant or any of its agents, servants, employees or representatives. Defendant further dentes, generally and specifically, that Plaintiff is entitled to damages or penalties in any amount, by reason of any act or omission to act on the part of Defendant, or on the part of its agents, servants, employees or representatives.

omission to act on the part of Defendant or any of its agents, servants, employees or representatives. Defendant further dentes, generally and specifically, that Plaintiff is entitled to damages or penalties in any amount, by reason of any act or omission to act on the part of Defendant, or on the part of its agents, servants, employees or representatives.

In further answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant alleges the following separate affirmative defenses.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to State a Cause of Action)

1. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against it.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statutes of Limitations)

2. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims, and the claims of each putative member of the purported class action defined in the Complaint, or some of them, are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitations, including, but not limited to, the California Code of | Civil Procedure sections 338 and 340, California Labor Code section 203, and California Business and Professions Code section 17208.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Estoppel)

3. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims, and the claims of each putative member

of the purported class defined in the Complaint, or some of them, are barred in whole or in part by

the doctrine of estoppel.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Waiver) 4. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action DB2/ 23530305.2 2 Case No. C1V 516382

DEFENDANT CFS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JOHN SAMPANG’S

DEFENDANT CFS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JOHN SAMPANG’S alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff s claims, and the claims of each putative member

alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff s claims, and the claims of each putative member

2 || of the purported class defined in the Complaint, or some of them, are barred in whole or in part

3 || because such claims have been waived, discharged, and/or abandoned.

4 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5 (Accord And Satisfaction, Payment)

6 5. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action

7 || alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims, and the claims of each putative member

8 || of the purported class action defined in the Complaint, or some of them, are barred in whole or in

9 || part by the principles of accord and satisfaction and payment.

10 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Release) 11 12 6. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action 13 || alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the claims of certain putative members of the purported 14 || class action defined in the Complaint are barred in whole or in part because said claims have been 15 | released by the individuals in question.

16 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Laches) 17 18 7. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action 19 || alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claims, and the claims of each putative member 20 || of the purported class action defined in the Complaint, or some of them, are barred in whole or in 21 || part by the doctrine of laches.

22 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands)

23 24 8. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action 25 || alleged therein, Plaintiff’s claims, and the claims of each putative member of the purported class 26 || action defined in the Complaint, or some of them, are barred in whole or in part by their unclean

27 || hands and/or inequitable or wrongful conduct.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Exemption)

9. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that, at all times mentioned in the Complaint, Plaintiff, and the claims of each putative member of the purported class action defined in the Complaint, or some of them, were exempt by virtue of one or more of the exemptions contained in the applicable

California wage and hour laws, including, but not limited to, the “outside sales” exemption.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Adequate Remedy At Law)

10. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s causes of action and those of the purported class brought pursuant to California Labor Code section 510 and California Business and Professions Code section 17200, are barred in light of the fact that Plaintiff and the purported class have an adequate remedy at law.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Conduct Reasonable and In Good Faith/Not Willful)

11. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that if it is found to have failed to pay Plaintiff, and each pfitative class member, any amount due, which allegations Defendant denies, Defendant acted at all times on the basis of a good faith and reasonable belief that it had complied fully with California wage and hour laws. Consequently, Defendant’s conduct was not willful within the

meaning of Sections 203, 226, and 1194.2 of the California Labor Code.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Setoff and Recoupment) 12. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that if any damages have beén sustained by Plaintiff, or by any putative class action members, although such is not admitted hereby or herein and is specifically

denied, Defendant is entitled under the equitable doctrine of setoff and recoupment to offset all DB2/ 23530305.2 4 Case No. CIV 516382

DEFENDANT CFS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JOHN SAMPANG’S

DEFENDANT CFS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JOHN SAMPANG’S obligations of the Plaintiff or putative class action members owed to Defendant against any judgment that may be entered against Defendant.

obligations of the Plaintiff or putative class action members owed to Defendant against any judgment that may be entered against Defendant.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Due Process/Class Certification)

13. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that certification of a class would constitute a denial of its due process rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Not Appropriate for Class Action)

14. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges the types of claims alleged by the named Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the alleged class, the existence of which are expressly denied, are matters in which individual questions predominate and, accordingly, are not appropriate for class action treatment.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Numerosity)

15. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to the extent it asserts a class action because members of the putative class are not so numerous that joinder of such members before the Court is impracticable.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Inadequate Representative)

16. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to the extent it asserts a class action because neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel will fairly and adequately represent the purported class. '

O 0 9 N A W

A O R O N =~ S © ® I & O B ®» R = 3

MORCAN, LEWIS &

BoCKius LLP ATTORNEYS AT Law PALO Al TO

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Claims Not Common or Typical)

17. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of action alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to the extent it asserts a class action because the claims alleged by the named Plaintiff are neither common to nor typical of those of the class he purports to represent.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Standing)

18. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint and to every cause of acti(;n alleged therein, Defendant alleges that the claims of Plaintiff and the class he purports to represent are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff fails to satisfy the prerequisites for class action certification and lacks standing under California Business and Professions Code section 17204 and the California Labor Code to bring these claims, and therefore cannot represent the interests of others as to each of the purported causes of action.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies/Preconditions)

19. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for “Civil Penalties” is barred by Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and/or preconditions, including, but not limited to, those under California Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (PAGA), including, but not limited to, the requirement of providing timely and sufficient notice of alleged statutory violations to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and to Defendant.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(PAGA Action Unconstitutional — Equal Protection)

20. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges that an award of PAGA penalties against Defendant pursuant to Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action would be an unconstitutional denial of Defendant’s rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 3, of the California DB2/ 23530305.2 6 Case No. CIV 516382

DEFENDANT CFS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JOHN SAMPANG’S

DEFENDANT CFS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF JOHN SAMPANG’S of action on terms not sanctioned by the judicial branch or the rules regulating the legal

of action on terms not sanctioned by the judicial branch or the rules regulating the legal

profession.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Violation of the California Labor Code)

24. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges that Defendant is not liable under Plaintiffs sixth cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 2699 et seq. because Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff, and/or the individuals Plaintiff purports to represent, for any underlying violation of the California Labor Code.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Injury Suffered)

25. As a separate affirmative defense to the Complaint, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s second and sixth causes of action are not maintainable because Plaintiff and the individuals Plaintiff purports to represent have not suffered an actual injury.

Defendant reserves the right to assert such additional affirmative defenses that may appear and prove applicable during the course of this litigation.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment against -the Plaintiff as follows:

1. The Court deny Plaintiff’s request to certify this action as a class action;

2. That Plaintiff takes nothing by this action;

3. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all causes of action;

4. That Defendant be awarded its attorneys’ fees incurred by this action; |

5. That Defendant be awarded its costs of suit incurred herein; and

6. That the Court award Defendant such other and further relief as the Court may

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CYPRESS CREMATION SERVICES INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FULTON NATALJA M.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LEE RACHEL J.