COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A ALL PROCESS, PLEADINGS AND ORDERS … · composite exhibit "a" all process,...

COMPOSITE EXHIBIT "A"

ALL PROCESS, PLEADINGS AND ORDERS IN THE STATE COURT ACTION

1 41712774;1

Case 3:17-cv-01232-L-BLM Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/17 PageID.10 of 20

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of SAN DIEGO

Case Number: 37-2017-00017 406-CU-BT-CTL Case Title: Lit'L Pepper Gourmet Inc vs. Sysco Corporation

[EFILE][IMAGED] Case Status: Pending

Case Category: Civil - Unlimited Case Type: Business Tort

12/15/2017 09:30 AM

LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC SYSCO CORPORATION

C-68

Plaintiff Defendant

Register of Actions Notice

Filing Date: Case Age:

Location: Judicial Officer:

Department:

05/12/2017 25 days

Central Judith F. Hayes C-68

Civil Case Management Conference - Complaint

Armstrong, Nicholas W; Licari, Michael A

ARMSTRONG, NICHOLAS W LICARI, MICHAEL A

2421 N 2nd Avenue 1 Birmingham AL 35203 (205) 208-9588 7801 Mission Center Court San Diego CA (619) 550-3011 92108

05/12/2017 Complaint filed by LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC. LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC Refers to: SYSCO CORPORATION (Plaintiff)

2 05/12/2017 Civil Case Cover Sheet filed by LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC INC. (Plaintiff)

3 05/12/2017 Original Summons filed by LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC. LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC (Plaintiff)

4 05/15/2017 Summons issued. 5 05/12/2017 Case assigned to Judicial Officer Hayes, Judith. 6 05/15/2017 Civil Case Management Conference scheduled for

12/15/2017 at 09:30:00 AM at Central in C-68 Judith F. Hayes.

7 05/15/2017 Case initiation form printed. 8 05/23/2017 Proof of Service of 30-day Summons & Complaint - LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC

Personal filed by LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC; LIT'L (Plaintiff); LIT'L PEPPER PEPPER GOURMET INC. GOURMET INC (Plaintiff) Refers to: SYSCO CORPORATION

Date Printed: June 06, 2017 (10:13AM PDT) Page 1 of 1


- - - - I

ATTORNEY OR PARTY VVITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and Address) TELEPHONE NO. FOR COURT USE ONLY

MICHAEL A. LICARI SBN 265241 (619) 550-3011 7801 Mission Center Ct

San Diego CA 92108

ATTORNEY FOR (Name

Insert of Court Name of Judicial District and Branch Court If any

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, SAN DIEGO

SHORT TITLE OF CASE

LIT'L PEPPER v SYSCO

Case Number:

3168778 (HEARING) Date Time Dept 37201700017406CUBTCTL REFERENCE NO.

SYSCO

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1. AT THE TIME OF SERVICE I WAS AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE AND NOT A PARTY TO THIS ACTION

2. I SERVED COPIES OF THE:

SUMMONS & COMPLAINT CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT AND CASE MANAGEMENT NOTICE TO LITIGANTS/ADR INFORMATION PACKAGE W/ BLANK STIPULATION

3. a. PARTY SERVED: Sysco Corporation

CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service, Agent for Service

b. PERSON SERVED: BECKY DEGEORGE, PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE CAUCASIAN FEMALE SO+YRS 5'8" 185LBS. BLOND HAIR

4. c. ADDRESS: 2710 GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 150N SACRAMENTO CA 95833

5. I SERVED THE PARTY NAMED IN ITEM 3

a. BY PERSONALLY DELIVERING THE DOCUMENTS LISTED IN ITEM 2 TO THE PARTY OR PERSON

AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR THE PARTY. ON

6. THE "NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED" WAS COMPLETED AS FOLLOWS:

5/18/2017 AT 2:50:00 PM

d. ON BEHALF OF: Sysco Corporation

CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service, Agent for Service

UNDER THE FOLLOWING CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION: CORPORATION CCP 416.10

d. The fee for service was $109.10

7a. Person Serving: Katrina Williams e. I am:

b. DDS Legal Support 2900 Bristol St Costa Mesa, Ca 92626

c. (714) 662-5555

8. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing ls true and correct. Katrina Williams

5/23/2017

(1) (3) x

Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California PROOF OF SERVICE POS-010 [REV Jan 1 2007]

not a registered California process server:

registered California process server: (i) Independent Contractor

(i) Registration No: 2015-10 (I) County: SACRAMENTO

CRC 982(A)(23)


···"'•""'"'""·WN'NNUm .. ····---,-.w-~·-~·-"~" __ §Y .. M:!Q.2 SUMMONS

(CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AV/SO AL DEMANDADO):

SYSCO CORPORATION and DOES 1through20.

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):

LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET, INC., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated.

FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)

NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information"below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case; There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. 1A VISOI Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dfas, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versi6n. Lea la informaci6n a continuaci6n.

Tiene 30 D{AS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles legates para presentar una respuesta porescrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telef6nica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corle y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov); en la biblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, pida al secretario de la corte que le de un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo1 puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.

Hay otros requisitos legates. Es recomendable que /lame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisi6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener seNicios legates gratuitos de un programa de servicios /ega/es sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AV/SO: Por fey, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperaci6n de $10,000 6 mas de valor reciblda mediante un acuerdo o una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el ca so.

The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direcci6n de la carte es): San Diego Superior Court - Central 330 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101

CASE NUMBER: (Numero de! Caso):

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direcci6n y el numero de telefono de/ abogado def demandante, o def demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Michael A. Licari, Esq., 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 240, San Diego, CA 92108; (619) 550-3011

DATE: Clerk, by , Deputy

(Fecha) (Secretario) :::;=::::::::::;::::::::::;,::::=:::::::::::::::::::;::============= (Adjunto) (Foip'ro""ofot servTce ofTfils"'summons:"'use Proof ot'Service"of su"'mmons (form POS-010).) " '"""""~--... (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).

(SEAL]

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California SUM-100 [Rev. July i, 2009]

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1 , c:J as an individual defendant. 2. CJ as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify);'

3. L=i on behalf of (specify).:

under: L=i CCP 416. to (corporation) Q CCP 416.60 (minor) r-=J CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) L ..... J CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CJ CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) LJ CCP 416.90 (authorized person)

[ '~] other (specify):

4. CJ by personal delivery on (date):

SUMMONS Page 1 of1

Code of Civil Procedure§§ 41220, 465 www.caurtinfo.ca gov


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STREET ADDRESS: 330 W Broadway

MAILING ADDRESS: 330 W Broadway

CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Diego, CA 92101-3827

BRANCH NAME: Central

TELEPHONE NUMBER: (619) 450-7068

PLAINTIFF(S) I PETITIONER(S): LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC

DEFENDANT(S) I RESPONDENT(S): SYSCO CORPORATION

LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC VS. SYSCO CORPORATION [EFILE]

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE on MANDATORY eFILE CASE

CASE ASSIGNMENT

Judge: Judith F. Hayes

COMPLAINT/PETITION FILED: 05/12/2017

TYPE OF HEARING SCHEDULED

Civil Case Management Conference

DATE

12/15/2017

TIME

09:30 am

CASE NUMBER:

37-2017-00017 406-CU-BT-CTL

Department: C-68

DEPT

C-68

JUDGE

Judith F. Hayes

A case management statement must be completed by counsel for all parties or self-represented litigants and timely filed with the court at least 15 days prior to the initial case management conference. (San Diego Local Rules, Division II, CRC Rule 3.725).

All counsel of record or parties in pro per shall appear at the Case Management Conference, be familiar with the case, and be fully prepared to participate effectively in the hearing, including discussions of ADR* options.

IT IS THE DUTY OF EACH PLAINTIFF (AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT) TO SERVE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WITH THE COMPLAINT (AND CROSS-COMPLAINT), THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) INFORMATION FORM (SDSC FORM #CIV-730), A STIPULATION TO USE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) (SDSC FORM #CIV-359), AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AS SET OUT IN SDSC LOCAL RULE 2.1.5.

ALL COUNSEL WILL BE EXPECTED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH SUPERIOR COURT RULES WHICH HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AS DIVISION II, AND WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.

TIME STANDARDS: The following timeframes apply to general civil cases and must be adhered to unless you have requested and been granted an extension of time. General civil cases consist of all civil cases except: small claims proceedings, civil petitions, unlawful detainer proceedings, probate, guardianship, conservatorship, juvenile, parking citation appeals, and family law proceedings.

COMPLAINTS: Complaints and all other documents listed in SDSC Local Rule 2.1.5 must be served on all named defendants.

DEFENDANT'S APPEARANCE: Defendant must generally appear within 30 days of service of the complaint. (Plaintiff may stipulate to no more than 15 day extension which must be in writing and filed with the Court.) (SDSC Local Rule 2.1.6)

JURY FEES: In order to preserve the right to a jury trial, one party for each side demanding a jury trial shall pay an advance jury fee in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150) on or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference in the action.

MANDATORY eFILE: Case assigned to mandatory eFile program per CRC 3.400-3.403 and SDSC Rule 2.4.11. All documents must be eFiled at www.onelegal.com. Refer to General Order in re procedures regarding electronically imaged court records, electronic filing, and access to electronic court records in civil and probate cases or guidelines and procedures.

COURT REPORTERS: Court reporters are not provided by the Court in Civil cases. See policy regarding normal availability and unavailability of official court reporters at www.sdcourt.ca.gov.

*ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR): THE COURT ENCOURAGES YOU TO CONSIDER UTILIZING VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES TO TRIAL, INCLUDING MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION, PRIOR TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. PARTIES MAY FILE THE ATTACHED STIPULATION TO USE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (SDSC FORM #CIV-359).

SDSC CIV-721 (Rev. 01-17) Page: 1

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT


- - - I

-------··········································· ···········-----· --~t.T TQ. RNE·:V· .'.m.~)Al~.T'(W~Pi0 . .1,V.:r .T.A. ·rroR_· N,f'[(f'{ame, State Bar numh!l1~ and address):

Micha~J tt. Liuu1 t!it>N 265G 1.lJ fYEGIDlO LICARI TOWNSEND & SHAH APC 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 240 San Diego! CA 92108

ifiU!.PMO. NENO.: (61~) 55Q-3011 FAX NO.: (877) 888-6304 ATfORNEYFOR(Name): LIT L PEPPER GOURMET, I.NC.

suPERmR couRr or c;\l:i.~o.fiillA·~"cou'NrvoF San Diego smrrar AQQl~ESS: 3;m vV. Broadwc~y MAtt.1N<Moow~ss: 3,50 V./. Broadway

c1TYANo.zircooE: San Diego, CA 92101 t~-~atv'."~· ...._N9..tL~~MLg"~~E~L!?..!.Y~~l2n - Hall of Justice

CASE NAME:

LIT'L PEPPE~QQY.~gT, INC. v. SYSCO CORPORATION, et al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

CZJ Unlimited CJ Limited Complex Case Designation

D Counter D Joinder

.............. __ ......... ·-·······----···----.. ·········· .. ----· FOR COURT.USE ONLY

ELECTROtuCALLY FILED Superior Gourt of California,

County of San Diego

0511212011 at 12 :33 :24 PM Glerk of the Superior Gourt

By \t.3nessa Bahena, Deputy Glerk

CASE NUMBER:

37-2017-00017406- CU- BT- CTL

(Amount (Amount d d d JUDGE: Judge Judith F. Hayes eman e demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $251000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:

·---~--·-"~-_ ... - __ ...... , .. -~""""Hems 1-6 below must be oomple.ted(see instructions on page 2), 1. Check one box b,elow for the case type that best describes this case: · .. ......_......__ ________ ~~~-_,,

Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation I I Auto (22) D Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)

D Uninsured motorist (46) D Rule 3.740 collections (09) D Antitrustrrrade regulation (03)

Other Pl/PO/WO (Personal Injury/Property D Other collections (09) [~-, Construction defect (10)

Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort D Insurance coverage (18) D Mass tort (40)

D Asbestos (04) D Other contract (37) D Securities litigation (28) D Product liability (24) Real Property D Environmental/Toxic tort (30}

DI I Medical malpractice (45) D Eminent domain/Inverse [:J Insurance <.toverage claims arising from the

_ Other Pl/PD/WD (23) condemnation (14) above tisted provisionally complextase Non-Pl/PD/WO (Other) Tort D Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)

I {j Business tort/unfair business practice (07) D Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment

D Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer D Enforcement of judgment (20)

Cl Defamation (13) D Commercial {31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

I J Fraud (16) D Residential (32) [~] RICO (27)

D Intellectual property (19) D Drugs (38) D Other complaint (not specified above) (42)

D Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition

D Other non-Pl/PD/WO tort (35} D Asset forfeiture (05) D Partnership and corporate governance (21)

Employment D Petition re: arbitration award (11) D Other petition (not specified above) (43) D Wrongful termination (36) D Writ of mandate (02)

D .. Other employment (15) D Other judicial review (39) 2. This"·~;~-;"""l.lJ is fJ; .. h~t .......... -·;~~·pi .. ~; .. under rule 3.400 of.th·;· .. c·;1'1f;·~·~·l·~ .. ·R·~·j·~;.,.~f--C~~rt. If the case is complex, ;;~~kt~~~·

factors requiring exceptional judicial management:

a. CZJ Large number of separately represented parties

b. CJ Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel issues that will be timewconsuming to resolve

c. CJ Substantial amount of documentary evidence

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.CZ] monetary

4. Number of causes of action (specify): Two (2) 5. This case CZJ is D is not a class action suit.

d. D Large number of witnesses e. r-......... , Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts

in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court

f. D Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

b. [ZJ non monetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. D punitive

6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. NSlt. ~

D~te: May 12,, 20,17_, _ · ,A M!qhael A. L1can, .fasq. V "' . ·-

rrvrE ()H PRINT NAME) . {$(($ un£ OF PAH'rY OR ATT-ORNEY FOR ?Af:rtY) . . . - . . NOTICE ... -www.. . . . . . .. ~ .. ~ .... ~I

• Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed , under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions.

• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on au

other parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this ls a coll:.:~~~~-~-~~~~ under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will b~~~~~tatistical purposes on~:. 01 or.~

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California CM-010 [Rev. July 1. 2007]

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3 220, 3.400.....3.403, 3,740; Cal Standards of Judicial Adrninistrat!on, std 3.10

www.courtlnfocagov


SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL)

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AV/SO AL DEMANDADO):

SYSCO CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 20.

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):

LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET, INC., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated.

FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)

SUM .. 100

NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.

You have 30 CALENDAR. DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case~ There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. /A VISOI Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dfas, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versi6n. Lea la informaci6n a continuaci6n.

Tiene 30 D(AS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta poresctito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una l/amada telef6nlca no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formu/arios de la corte y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca,gov); en la biblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, pida al secretario de la corte que le de un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podra quitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.

Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que l/ame a un abogado inmediatamente. Sino conoce a un abogado, puede /lamar a un setvicio de rem;si6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener setvicios legales gratuitos de un programa de setvicios lega/es sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de Jucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.govJ o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVIS(): Por fey, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperaci6n de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.

The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direcci6n de la carte es): San Diego Superior Court - Central 330 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101

CASE NUMBER: (Numero de/ Caso):

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direcci6n y el numero de telefono def abogado de/ demandante, o de/ demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Michael A. Licari, Esq., 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 240, San Diego, CA 92108; (619) 550-3011

DA TE: Clerk, by , Deputy (Fecha) (Secretario) (Adjunto) (FOr pfoofof sefVice Ofi:filSNNsumfiiDnS~mUse Pr00f ot'Se.iVTC'e"'ot Summons (torin PO:;w::s=-0=1=0::~=.):::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::========= .. :: .................... ___ .. . (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).

(SEAL]

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009}

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1, D as an individual defendant. 2. O as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify);

3. CJ on behalf of (specify).:

under: C:=J CCP 416.10 (corporation) I ] CCP 416.60 (minor) [-:J CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) c:J CCP 416.40 (association or partnership)

[""'"'"'] CCP 416.70 (conservatee) r.=:J CCP 416.90 (authorized person)

r '] other (specify): 4. [ ) by personal delivery on (date):

SUMMONS .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......_,Page1m1

Code of Civil Procedure§§ 412.20, 465 www.courtinfo.ca.gov


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 D'EGIDIO LICARI

TOWNSEND & SHAH,

APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN DIEGO

- - I

Michael A. Licari, SBN 265241 [email protected] D'EGLIDIO LICARI TOWNSEND & SHAH APC 7801 Mission Center Court San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 619.550.3011 Fax: 619.550.3011

Nicholas W. Armstrong, SBN 270963 [email protected] PRICE ARMSTRONG LLC 2421 2nd A venue North, Suite 1 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205.208.9588 Fax: 205.208.9598

Attorneys for Plaintiff

-- I

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION

LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET, INC., individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

SYSCO CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 20,

Defendants.

Case No.:

COMPLAINT FOR:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1. Unlawful, Unfair and Fraudulent Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et. seq.); and

2. Unfair, Deceptive, and Misleading Advertising (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code§ 17500 et. seq.);

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

[IMAGED FILE]

1 PLAINTIFF Lit'l Pepper Gourmet, Inc.


1 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Lit'l Pepper Gourmet, Inc. individually and on behalf of

2 classes of all California persons and entities who are similarly situated, and assert this Class

3 Action Complaint against the Defendant Sysco Corporation.

4 NATURE OF THE CASE

5 1. Sysco is a multinational food distribution company headquartered in Houston,

6 Texas. Sysco markets, sells, and distributes food products to restaurants, healthcare and

7 educational facilities, lodging establishments and other customers like Plaintiff. In addition to the

8 amount Sysco charges its customers for the sale and delivery of food products, Sysco charges its

9 California customers a fee it calls a "Fuel Surcharge." The naming of the fee is not accidental.

1 O The term "Fuel Surcharge" has a specific and understood meaning and Sysco uses this specific

11 term to create the false impression that the fee is a legitimate charge related to increased fuel costs

12 Sysco incurs in delivering products to its customers. Sysco further uses the term "Fuel Surcharge"

13 to create the false impression that the fee varies in accordance with Sysco' s increased fuel costs

14 and that the revenue from the "Fuel Surcharge" is used to offset those increased costs.

15 2. Sysco's representations, omissions, and practices in charging the "Fuel Surcharge"

16 are deceptive and unfair. The "Fuel Surcharge" bears absolutely no relation to Sysco's actual

1 7 increased fuel costs (or its actual fuel costs) and Sysco does not use the proceeds from the "Fuel

18 Surcharge" to offset its increased fuel costs (or its actual fuel costs). The amount of the "Fuel

19 Surcharge" generally does not change, despite decreases in Sysco' s fuel costs due to market

20 changes in fuel prices. Further, Sysco includes any increases in fuel costs it might incur in

21 delivering products in the standard prices it charges customers. Sysco uses the "Fuel Surcharge"

22 simply to generate extra profit at its customers' expense, all the while deceiving customers into

23 believing that the fee is a legitimate charge directly related to actual increased fuel costs it incurs,

24 which it falsely claims it cannot control.

25 3. Sysco's conduct constitutes a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law

26 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17200, et seq.), and a violation of California's False Advertising Law (Cal.

27 Bus. & Prof. § 17500, et seq.). Plaintiff and hundreds of similarly situated individuals and small

28 D'EGIDIO LICARI &

TOWNSEND, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN DIEGO

2

PLAINTIFF Lit'l Pepper Gourmet, Inc.


1 businesses in California have been damaged through this conduct by paying inflated and unlawful

2 fees that acted as hidden rate increases. Plaintiff brings this action to recover those fees.

3 4. Finally, this case presents a prototypical situation for class treatment. Sysco' s

4 conduct-including all relevant practices, deception, representations, and omissions-is uniform

5 among all customers. Sysco uniformly uses the term "Fuel Surcharge" on its invoices. The

6 application of common California law to a shared course of conduct will determine liability for

7 the class as a whole, ensuring that the rights of thousands of small businesses and individuals are

8 vindicated through the efficiency of a single trial.

9 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action and venue is proper in this Court

11 because jurisdiction and venue in that a substantial portion of Defendant's conduct that forms the

12 basis of this action occurred in San Diego County, California. Defendant does business here and

13 has received and continues to receive substantial revenue and profits from its unlawful conduct in

14 San Diego County, California. Plaintiff also resides here.

15 PARTIES

16 6. Plaintiff Lit'l Pepper Gourmet, Inc. is a California corporation located in San

17 Diego, California. Plaintiff was invoiced for and paid a "Fuel Surcharge" on multiple occasions.

18 7. Defendant Sysco is a Delaware entity with has its principal place of business in

19 Houston, Texas. Defendant's appointed agent for service of process is Corporation Service

20 Company, 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N, Sacramento, CA 95833. Defendant Sysco

21 received all of the "Fuel Surcharges" at issue and is responsible, either directly or indirectly, for

22 the conduct at issue in this matter.

23 8. Defendants designated Does 1 through 20 are entities or individuals whose true

24 identities and capacities are not currently known to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will amend this complaint

25 to specify their true names and capacities when this information is discovered.

26

27



SAN DIEGO

3



1

2

3

4

5

CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

9. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action proposes the following class:

All entities who reside in California who paid Sysco a "Fuel Surcharge" from four

years before filing of this action to the date of class certification.

10. Plaintiff excludes entities in bankruptcy, entities whose obligations have been

6 discharged in bankruptcy, governmental entities, and judicial officers who preside over this case.

7 11. Plaintiff maintains the right to create additional subclasses or classes, if necessary,

8 and to revise these definitions to maintain a cohesive class that does not require individual inquiry

9 to determine liability.

10 12. The exact number of class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, but such

11 information can be ascertained through appropriate discovery, specifically from records

12 maintained by Sysco its agents. Upon information and belief, the number of putative members of

13 the class exceeds 60 members.

14 EXISTENCE AND PREDOMINANCE OF

15 COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

16 13. There are common questions of law and fact common and of general interest to the

17 class. These common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only

18 individual members of the class. Such common questions include, but are not limited to, the

19 following:

20 a. Whether Sysco charges excessive amounts for its "Fuel Surcharge".

21 b. Whether the "Fuel Surcharge" is directly related to Sysco's increased cost of fuel or

22 actual cost of fuel.

23 c. Whether Sysco uses the "Fuel Surcharge" to offset its increased fuel costs.

24 d. Whether the "Fuel Surcharge" fluctuates as Sysco' s actual fuel costs fluctuate.

25 e. Whether Sysco' s use of the term "Fuel Surcharge" is deceptive.

26 g. Whether Sysco has misrepresented facts about the "Fuel Surcharge".

27 h. Whether Sysco has omitted material facts about the "Fuel Surcharge".



SAN DIEGO

4



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

i. Whether the "Fuel Surcharge" bears any relation to Defendants' increased costs of

fuel or its actual cost of fuel.

J. Whether Sysco' s representations and omissions regarding the "Fuel Surcharge"

constitute a deceptive trade practice.

k. Whether Sysco has been unjustly enriched by charging the "Fuel Surcharge".

1. Whether the term "Fuel Surcharge" is likely to mislead a reasonable person.

m. Whether the same law applies to all class members' claims.

n. Whether Plaintiff and class members are entitled to class relief as requested herein.

o. Whether Sysco is recovering for the same alleged cost twice, i.e. once in the actual

rate and then again in the actual surcharge or fee.

TYPICALITY AND NUMEROSITY

14. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the respective

13 classes. Upon information and belief, the total number of members of each putative class exceeds

14 60 members and is so numerous that separate j oinder of each member is impracticable.

15 ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION

16 15. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the class

17 and have no interest antagonistic to those of other class members. Plaintiff has retained class

18 counsel competent to prosecute class actions and such class counsel is financially able to

19 represent the classes.

20 SUPERIORITY

21 16. The class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

22 adjudication of this controversy since individual j oinder of all members of the class is

23 impracticable. The interests of judicial economy favor adjudicating the claims for the Plaintiff

24 class rather than on an individual basis. The class action mechanism provides the benefit of

25 unitary adjudication, economies of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

26 17. Questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only

27 individual members.

28

D'EGIDIO LICARI & TOWNSEND, APC

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN DIEGO

5



1

2 18.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is a restaurant in San Diego, California. Sysco is a multinational food

3 distribution company headquartered in Houston, Texas with over $50 billion a year in annual

4 revenue. As with all its customers, Sysco marketed, sold, and delivered food products to Plaintiff

5 in exchange for a per item cost. But in addition to this amount, Sysco also charged Plaintiff the

6 fee that is the subject of this lawsuit.

7 19. Sysco calls this fee a "Fuel Surcharge." The naming of the fee is not an accident.

8 The term "Fuel Surcharge" has a specific and understood meaning. Sysco labeled it as such to

9 create the impression that the purpose of the "Fuel Surcharge" is to recover the increased fuel

10 costs it incurs in delivering products to its customers. As such, Sysco represents that the "Fuel

11 Surcharge" is directly related to its increased cost of fuel, that this fee fluctuates as Sysco' s fuel

12 cost fluctuates, and that this fee is used to offset those increased fuel costs. By using the term

13 "Fuel Surcharge"-a term which Sysco has uniformly used on every invoice received by every

14 Class Member charged this fee-Sysco represents that this fee is directly related to its increased

15 fuel costs and that this fee will be used to defray such costs.

16 20. In actuality, the "Fuel Surcharge" is unrelated to Sysco's actual or increased fuel

17 costs, and is not charged to defray those increased costs. The "Fuel Surcharge" does not vary or

18 fluctuate in accordance with Sysco' s actual increased fuel costs and the method by which Sysco

19 determines the "Fuel Surcharge" has no relation to its increased fuel costs or any changes in those

20 costs. Sysco has done no legitimate analysis to determine the proper amount of the "Fuel

21 Surcharge" in connection to its increased fuel costs. Sysco does not apply the money received

22 from the "Fuel Surcharge" to offset its increased fuel costs; rather, it is recognized as revenue and

23 contributes directly to Sysco' s profit. Sysco' s per gallon fuel costs are lower today than when the

24 "Fuel Surcharge" was implemented, yet Sysco still charges this fee.

25

26

27



SAN DIEGO

21. Additionally, the increased fuel costs Sysco purportedly recovers through the

"Fuel Surcharge" are already paid fully through the prices it charges for the sale and delivery of

products. These prices includes the individual component costs of Sysco's business, including

specifically-the costs of fuel and other overhead. Sysco, at some time in the past, did not charge 6



1 "Fuel Surcharges" to its customers. Any purported fuel costs or increased fuel costs were

2 recovered in the per item price for the sale and delivery of products, the same as other overhead

3 costs. Sysco, however, determined that it could substantially increase revenue by charging this

4 deceptive fee. Sysco recovers the same alleged costs twice from its customers. Such practice

5 constitutes "double-dipping."

6 22. Sysco also has omitted material facts regarding the "Fuel Surcharge." For

7 example, Sysco does not disclose that the "Fuel Surcharge" is not related to Sysco' s increased

8 fuel or actual fuel costs, tpat the "Fuel Surcharge" is not applied to Sysco's fuel costs, that

9 Sysco' s actual cost of fuel is not a factor in the amount of the "Fuel Surcharge," or that the "Fuel

10 Surcharge" is recognized as profit. Sysco does not disclose its actual fuel costs to customers nor

11 does it disclose the methodology, to the extent there is one, used to determine the amount of the

12 "Fuel Surcharge." And Sysco never discloses that the amount of "Fuel Surcharges" charged to

13 customers substantially exceeds its actual increased fuel costs, if any.

14 23. In truth, Sysco devised, implemented, and set the amount of the "Fuel Surcharge"

15 simply to increase its profits without any intent of recovering the increased fuel costs it incurs in

16 selling goods to customers.

17 24. This naming, implementation, and charging of the "Fuel Surcharge" is designed by

18 Sysco to deceive its customers, is likely to deceive those customers acting reasonably under the

19 circumstances, and did in fact deceive Plaintiff and Sysco' s other customers to their detriment in

20 that each paid a "Fuel Surcharge. "1 Sysco' s misrepresentations, omissions, and deceptive

21 practices violate California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17200, et seq.) and

22 California's False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17500, et seq.).

23

24

25

26

27



SAN DIEGO

1 Plaintiff does not claim that it did not know about the "Fuel Surcharge." Rather, Plaintiff's claims arise from the fact that the "Fuel Surcharge" (labeled as such by Sysco), was not-in intent or effect-designed to recover Sysco's increased or actual fuel costs. In other words, while Sysco may have made Plaintiff and other class members aware of the existence of the fee, Sysco did not disclose to its customers that its "Fuel Surcharge" was not designed to recover its increased fuel costs as the name of the fee suggests.

7



1

2

3

4

5

6

25.

26.

27.

- - - I

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Unlawful, Unfair and Fraudulent Business Practices

(Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17200, et seq.)

All allegations and paragraphs in this complaint are incorporated by reference.

Plaintiff alleges that the Fuel Surcharge is unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent.

Through the conduct described herein, and particularly through the charging and

7 collecting of unlawful, misrepresented, and excessive fees to Plaintiff and members of the public,

8 Sysco has engaged in unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business acts within the meaning of

9 California Business and Professions Code § 1 7200 et seq. Sysco' s acts and practices offend an

10 established public policy, and Sysco has engaged in immoral, unethical, oppressive, and

11 unscrupulous activities that are substantially injurious to consumers including Plaintiff.

12 28. Sysco' s acts of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices include

13 violations of the California Civil Code §§ 1572, 1573, 1709, 1711, 1770, 1670.5, among other

14 provisions, and the common law. Such acts include, but are not limited to:

15 a. charging Fuel Surcharges which are excessive, unreasonable, and unlawful;

16 b. misrepresenting the purpose and nature of the Fuel Surcharges;

17 c. misrepresenting and omitting that the Fuel Surcharges bear no relation to Sysco' s

18 cost of fuel or increased cost of fuel;

19 d. misrepresenting and omitting to reveal that the Fuel Surcharges are not designed to

20 cover Sysco's fuel costs or increased fuel costs;

21 e. omitting to reveal the Fuel Surcharges are used to create profit for Sysco;

22 f. misrepresenting and omitting to reveal that Sysco recovers for all fuel costs and

23 increased fuel costs through other fees and charges apart from the Fuel Surcharges;

24 g. charging Fuel Surcharges which are unconscionable

25 h. charging Plaintiff and putative class members for the same alleged costs twice, i.e.

26 "double dipping";

27

28

1. charging a ''Fuel Surcharge" which bears no relation to Sysco' s actual or increased

D'EGIDIO LICARI & TOWNSEND, APC

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN DIEGO

costs; 8



1

2

3

4 29.

J. charging a "Fuel Surcharge" which does not include Sysco' s actual costs in the

calculation of the amount the "Fuel Surcharge"; and

k. charging a "Fuel Surcharge" when Sysco' s fuel costs decrease.

Plaintiff reserves the right to allege other violations that constitute other unlawful

5 business acts or practices. Upon information and belief, Sysco's wrongful conduct in violation of

6 § 17200, et seq. is ongoing and continues to this date.

7 30. There were reasonably available alternatives to further Sysco' s legitimate business

8 interests, other than its conduct described herein.

9 31. Sysco' s actions, nondisclosures, and misleading statements, as alleged in this

10 Complaint, were and are likely to deceive Plaintiff and the public, and are intended to deceive

11 Plaintiff and members of the public. Plaintiff has in fact been deceived and has relied on Sysco

12 representations and omissions. This reliance has caused harm to Plaintiff and Plaintiff has

13 suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Sysco' s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent

14 practices. Plaintiff has paid the unlawful fees.

15 32. As a result of its unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent practices, Sysco has been able to

16 reap unjust revenue and profit. Further, upon information and belief, unless restrained and

17 enjoined, Sysco will continue to engage in the above-described conduct. Accordingly, injunctive

18 relief is appropriate here.

19 33. Sysco' s actions also constitute "unfair" business acts or practices because, as

20 alleged above, inter alia, Sysco engages in false advertising, misrepresents and omits material

21 facts regarding the improper fees, and thereby offends an established public policy, and engages

22 in immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous activities that are substantially injurious to

23 consumers including Plaintiff and the general public.

24 34. As a result of the deceptive and unfair practices described above, Plaintiff and

25 each putative class member paid the improper "Fuel Surcharges" to their detriment.

26

27



SAN DIEGO

9



1

2

3

4

5

35.

36.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

False and Misleading Statements

(Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17500, et seq.)


Through the conduct described herein, and particularly through the charging and

6 collecting of unreasonable fuel surcharges from Plaintiff and members of the public, Sysco has

7 engaged in unfair, deceptive, and misleading advertising within the meaning of California

8 Business and Professions Code § 17500 et seq. Sysco's acts and practices offend an established

9 public policy, and Sysco has engaged in immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous

10 activities that are substantially injurious to consumers including Plaintiff.

11 37. Sysco made and disseminated false and misleading statements to Plaintiff and

12 members of the public regarding the nature, purpose, and effect of the fees, as well as regarding

13 the fuel costs Sysco incurs. Sysco created false impressions which it failed to correct, and

14 concealed material information regarding the fees.

15 38. Upon information and belief, Sysco wrongful conduct in violation of Business &

16 Professions Code § 17500, et seq. is ongoing and continues to this date. Sysco acted knowingly

17 and intentionally. There were reasonably available alternatives to further Sysco legitimate

18 business interests, other than the conduct described herein.

19 39. Sysco actions, claims, nondisclosures, and misleading statements, as alleged in this

20 Complaint, are likely to deceive Plaintiff and the public, and were intended to deceive Plaintiff

21 and members of the public. Plaintiff has in fact been deceived and has relied on Sysco' s

22 representations and omissions. This reliance has caused harm to Plaintiff and Plaintiff has

23 suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Sysco unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent

24 practices. Plaintiff has paid the unlawful Fuel Surcharges.

25 40. As a result of its deception, Sysco has been able to reap unjust revenue and profit.

26 Further, upon information and belief, unless restrained and enjoined, Sysco will continue to

27 engage in the above-described conduct. Accordingly, injunctive relief is appropriate.



SAN DIEGO

10



1 41. Plaintiff, on behalf of itself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,

2 seeks restitution of all money improperly obtained from Plaintiff and class members; an

3 injunction prohibiting Sysco from continuing such practices; and all other relief the Court deems

4 proper and just, consistent with, inter alia, Business & Professions Code § 1 7203.

5 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

6 Unjust Enrichment

7

8

9

42.

43.

44.


To the extent necessary, this count is pled in the alternative to the previous counts.

Sysco received money from Plaintiff and each member of the putative classes

1 O through the charging of "Fuel Surcharges" that are fraudulent, deceptive, unfair, and unrelated to

11 Sysco's actual or increased costs. The benefit conferred by Plaintiff and each member of the

12 putative class was non-gratuitous and Sysco realized value from this benefit. It would be

13 inequitable for Sysco to retain this benefit.

14 REQUEST FOR JUDGMENT

15 Plaintiff asks for judgment against Sysco in its and the putative classes' favor, as follows:

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



SAN DIEGO

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

5.

For an order certifying this action as a class action;

For full restitution of the Fuel Surcharges paid by the class;

For damages in the amount of the Fuel Surcharges paid by the classes;

For attorneys' fees;

For an order prohibiting Sysco from charging the Fuel Surcharges; and

For all other relief which is deemed equitable and just.

11



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



SAN DIEGO

Dated: May 12, 2017

12

,SB [email protected] PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC

2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205.208.9588 Fax: 205.208.9598

Michael A. Licari, SBN 265241 [email protected] D'EGIDIO LICARI TOWNSEND & SHAH, APC

7801 Mission Center Court San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 619.550.3011 Fax: 619.550.3011



SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STREET ADDRESS: 330 W Broadway

MAILING ADDRESS: 330 W Broadway

CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Diego, CA 92101-3827

BRANCH NAME: Central

TELEPHONE NUMBER: (619) 450-7068

PLAINTIFF(S) I PETITIONER(S): LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC

DEFENDANT(S) I RESPONDENT(S): SYSCO CORPORATION

LIT'L PEPPER GOURMET INC VS. SYSCO CORPORATION [EFILE]

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE on MANDATORY eFILE CASE

CASE ASSIGNMENT

Judge: Judith F. Hayes

COMPLAINT/PETITION FILED: 05/12/2017

TYPE OF HEARING SCHEDULED

Civil Case Management Conference

DATE

12/15/2017

TIME

09:30 am

CASE NUMBER:

37-2017-00017406-CU-BT-CTL

Department: C-68

DEPT

C-68

JUDGE

Judith F. Hayes

A case management statement must be completed by counsel for all parties or self-represented litigants and timely filed with the court at least 15 days prior to the initial case management conference. (San Diego Local Rules, Division II, CRC Rule 3.725).

All counsel of record or parties in pro per shall appear at the Case Management Conference, be familiar with the case, and be fully prepared to participate effectively in the hearing, including discussions of ADR* options.

IT IS THE DUTY OF EACH PLAINTIFF (AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT) TO SERVE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WITH THE COMPLAINT (AND CROSS-COMPLAINT), THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) INFORMATION FORM (SDSC FORM #CIV-730), A STIPULATION TO USE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) (SDSC FORM #CIV-359), AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AS SET OUT IN SDSC LOCAL RULE 2.1.5.

ALL COUNSEL WILL BE EXPECTED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH SUPERIOR COURT RULES WHICH HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED AS DIVISION II, AND WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.

TIME STANDARDS: The following timeframes apply to general civil cases and must be adhered to unless you have requested and been granted an extension of time. General civil cases consist of all civil cases except: small claims proceedings, civil petitions, unlawful detainer proceedings, probate, guardianship, conservatorship, juvenile, parking citation appeals, and family law proceedings.

COMPLAINTS: Complaints and all other documents listed in SDSC Local Rule 2.1.5 must be served on all named defendants.

DEFENDANT'S APPEARANCE: Defendant must generally appear within 30 days of service of the complaint. (Plaintiff may stipulate to no more than 15 day extension which must be in writing and filed with the Court.) (SDSC Local Rule 2.1.6)

JURY FEES: In order to preserve the right to a jury trial, one party for each side demanding a jury trial shall pay an advance jury fee in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150) on or before the date scheduled for the initial case management conference in the action.

MANDATORY eFILE: Case assigned to mandatory eFile program per CRC 3.400-3.403 and SDSC Rule 2.4.11. All documents must be eFiled at www.onelegal.com. Refer to General Order in re procedures regarding electronically imaged court records, electronic filing, and access to electronic court records in civil and probate cases or guidelines and procedures.

COURT REPORTERS: Court reporters are not provided by the Court in Civil cases. See policy regarding normal availability and unavailability of official court reporters at www.sdcourt.ca.gov.

*ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR): THE COURT ENCOURAGES YOU TO CONSIDER UTILIZING VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES TO TRIAL, INCLUDING MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION, PRIOR TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. PARTIES MAY FILE THE ATTACHED STIPULATION TO USE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (SDSC FORM #CIV-359).

SDSC CIV-721 (Rev. 01-17) Page: 1

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT


COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A ALL PROCESS, PLEADINGS AND ORDERS … · composite exhibit "a" all process,...

Documents

Transcript of COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A ALL PROCESS, PLEADINGS AND ORDERS … · composite exhibit "a" all process,...