Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Pacelli v. Augustus Intelligence, Inc., 20-cv-1011 (LJL). (2020)

Court: District Court, S.D. New York Number: infdco20200303838 Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2020
Summary: ORDER LEWIS J. LIMAN , District Judge . California Labor Code 925(a) covers an employee "who primarily resides and works in California." According to Plaintiffs, "at all times during [Ed Crump's] employment he lived and worked primarily in California." (Dkt. No. 8 at 20.) According to Defendant, "Plaintiff Crump worked primarily in New York." (Dkt. No. 12 at 9.) Ramsey Taylor, General Counsel for Defendant, has declared under penalty of perjury that, "[a]t most, [Crump] worked out of Ca
More

ORDER

California Labor Code § 925(a) covers an employee "who primarily resides and works in California."

According to Plaintiffs, "at all times during [Ed Crump's] employment he lived and worked primarily in California." (Dkt. No. 8 at 20.) According to Defendant, "Plaintiff Crump worked primarily in New York." (Dkt. No. 12 at 9.)

Ramsey Taylor, General Counsel for Defendant, has declared under penalty of perjury that, "[a]t most, [Crump] worked out of California 21% of the time he was employed by Defendant Augustus." (Dkt. No. 13 at 2.) Ed Crump has declared, under penalty of perjury, that he "spent the majority of [his] time working from California." (Dkt. No. 10.)

To resolve this factual question, counsel for both parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for an evidentiary hearing on Monday, March 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. No materials should be submitted in advance. At the hearing, Court will take evidence and hear argument only on this factual issue.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer