Salvador Liendo v. Momentum Work, Inc.

Case Number

25CV04425

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 03/06/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Early Evaluation Conference

Tentative Ruling

Salvador Liendo v. Momentum Work, Inc.                        

Lead Case No. 25CV04425

(consolidated with case no. 25CV05847)

           

Hearing Date: March 6, 2026                                      

HEARING:              Early Evaluation Conference

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Salvador Liendo: Karen I. Gold, Marissa M. Mayhood, Noam Y. Reiffman, Sara Pezeshkpour, Blackstone Law, APC

                                    For Defendant Momentum Work, Inc.: Nicholas Roxborough, Laura H. Park, Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated herein, the parties shall appear at the early evaluation conference and be prepared to address or discuss the matters described herein.

Background:

On July 15, 2025, plaintiff Salvador Liendo filed a class action complaint against defendant Momentum Work, Inc., alleging nine causes of action: (1) violation of Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (failure to pay minimum wage); (2) violation of Labor Code sections 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime); (3) violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512, subdivision (a), (meal break violations); (4) violation of Labor Code section 226.7 (rest break violations); (5) violation of Labor Code sections 204 and 210 (wages not timely paid during employment); (6) violation of Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a), (wage statement violations); (7) violation of Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203 (untimely final wages); (8) violation of Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802 (failure to reimburse necessary business expenses); and (9) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (unfair and unlawful business practices). As alleged in the complaint:

Plaintiff worked for defendant as a Job Coach from approximately January 2025 through February 2025, at defendant’s location in Carpinteria, California. (Compl., ¶ 20.) Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of themselves, of all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for defendant in the State of California at any time from four years prior to the date of the filing of the complaint (the Class), and all former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for defendant in the State of California at any time from four years prior to the date of the filing of the complaint (the Subclass). (Compl., ¶¶ 24-25.)

Plaintiff believes that, as to plaintiff and the members of the Class and Subclass, defendant required its employees to work off-the-clock without compensation; failed to properly pay wages for all hours worked; failed to provide all required meal and rest breaks or to pay meal and rest break premiums when due; failed to timely pay wages during employment and upon termination of employment; failed to provide accurate wage statements; and failed to reimburse necessary business-related expenses, among other things. (FAC, ¶¶ 2, 21, 34, 44, 52-55, 62-64, 72, 76, 83, 87-88, 90-93.)

On August 27, defendant filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting fifty-four affirmative defenses, and separately filed a request for an early evaluation conference or “EEC” (the EEC Request) pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3, subdivision (f)(1)(A), and a stay of these proceedings.

On September 2, the court signed and entered an order (the EEC Order) pursuant to which the court granted the EEC Request, scheduled an EEC for December 5, stayed the action, and ordered the parties to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 2699.3, subdivision (f)(3)(B) through (E).

On September 23, defendant submitted a confidential statement in regard to the EEC.

On September 24, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to vacate the EEC and lift the stay of this action, which defendant opposed. The court denied that application pursuant to a minute order issued on September 29.

Also on September 24, defendant filed a notice of related case identifying Santa Barbara Superior Court case number 25CV05847, filed on September 18 and entitled Salvador Liendo v. Momentum Work, Inc., (the Related Action) as related to this case.

On October 15, plaintiff filed a confidential statement in regard to the EEC.

On November 5, defendant filed a motion for an order consolidating this action with the Related Action for all purposes. That motion, which plaintiff did not oppose, was granted pursuant to the court’s minute order dated December 5, and order signed and entered on December 9. Pursuant to those orders, this action was designated as the lead case.

On December 3, the court signed and entered an order granting an ex parte application to continue the EEC that was filed by defendant on December 2, and opposed by plaintiff. The court continued the EEC to March 6, 2026.

Analysis:

Labor Code section 2699.3 provides that an employer with 100 or more employees, “upon being served with a summons and complaint asserting a claim under subdivision (a) or (f) of [Labor Code] [s]ection 2699, may file a request for an early evaluation conference in the proceedings of the claim and a request for a stay of court proceedings prior to or simultaneous with that defendant’s responsive pleading or other initial appearance in the action that includes the claim.” (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (f)(1)(A).)

The parties do not appear to dispute that the complaint filed by plaintiff in the Related Action alleges one cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 or “PAGA”), including subdivision (a) of Labor Code section 2699, or the Related Action and this case are consolidated for all purposes. (See Related Action Compl., ¶¶ 30-31.)

In addition, court records in the Related Action reflect that defendant also filed in that action, an unopposed request for an early evaluation conference and stay pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3, and that the court signed and entered an order on November 18 granting that request, staying the Related Action, and scheduling an early evaluation conference in that case for December 5.

The purpose of the early evaluation conference authorized by Labor Code section 2699.3 includes evaluation, as applicable, of the matters described in subdivision (f)(1)(B)(i) through (iv) of that section. (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (f)(1)(B).)

Upon the filing by a defendant of a request for an early evaluation conference and stay of proceedings, the court must, absent good cause to deny that request, stay the proceedings, and issue an order that schedules a mandatory early evaluation conference “as soon as possible from the date of the order but in no event later than 70 days after issuance of the order[]” and “[d]irects the parties to appear at the time set for the conference.” (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (f)(3)(A) & (D).)

A request by a defendant for an early evaluation conference pursuant to subdivision (f)(1)(A) of Labor Code section 2699.3 must “include a statement regarding whether the defendant intends to cure any or all of the alleged violations, specify the alleged violations it will cure, if applicable, and identify the allegations it disputes.” (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (f)(2).) In addition, and as noted above, the EEC Order directs the parties to comply with subdivision (f)(3)(B) through (E) of Labor Code section 2699.3.

To the extent a defendant’s request includes a statement that the defendant intends to cure any alleged violations, subdivision (f)(3)(B) of Labor Code section 2699.3 requires that defendant to “submit confidentially to the neutral evaluator and serve on the plaintiff, within 21 days after issuance of the order, the employer’s proposed plan to cure those violations.” (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (f)(3)(B).) If a defendant disputes any alleged violations, subdivision (f)(3)(C) requires that defendant to “submit to the neutral evaluator and serve on the plaintiff a confidential statement that includes for use solely for the early evaluation conference, the basis and evidence for disputing those alleged violations.” (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (f)(3)(C).)

Plaintiff must also, pursuant to subdivision (f)(3)(E) of section 2699.3, “submit to the neutral evaluator and serve on the defendant no more than 21 days after service of defendant’s proposed cure plan, a confidential statement that includes, to the extent reasonably known, for use solely for the purpose of the early evaluation conference[]” the matters described in subdivision (f)(3)(E)(i) through (v).

Pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3, the early evaluation conference “shall be conducted by a judge or commissioner or such other person knowledgeable about and experienced with issues arising under the code whom the court shall designate.” (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (f)(12).)

Defendant states in the EEC Request that, though it “disputes all allegations in the [c]omplaint; nonetheless, it will conduct its due diligence and to the extent it discovers areas to cure with regard to [p]laintiff’s causes of action, [d]efendant reserves the right to cure.” (EEC Req. at p. 2, ll. 5-7.) The court has no record showing that defendant submitted to a neutral evaluator designated by the court, a proposed plan or confidential statement as required by subdivisions (f)(3)(B) and (C) of Labor Code section 2699.3. In addition, the court has no record showing that plaintiff submitted the matters described in subdivision (f)(3)(E) of that section to a designated neutral evaluator.

For all reasons discussed herein, and absent any reasoned argument by the parties showing why they are not required to submit the information or materials described in Labor Code section 2699.3, subdivisions (f)(3)(B) through (C) and (E) to a neutral evaluator whom the court shall designate, the court will address the appointment or designation of a neutral evaluator to conduct the early evaluation conference at the conference presently calendared for March 6, 2026. Accordingly, the court will require appearances at that conference.