Case Management Conference
2026CUOE063000: JULIE TARANTINO, vs LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 08/03/2026 in Department 44 CMC: Complex Track
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT FOR ALL PURPOSES: All parties shall take notice that the above-referenced case has been assigned to Judge Charmaine H. Buehner and Department 44 of the Ventura County Superior Court, located at the Hall of Justice, 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA, 93009. Tentative Case Management Order. The following is a statement of the Courts tentative case management order. The parties are welcome to provide input and propose modification(s) to any aspect of the CMO at the Case Management Conference. If all parties submit on the tentative CMO, the Court will adopt the tentative CMO, and the parties need not appear. If there are any matters not addressed in the tentative CMO that any party would like to discuss, that party should not submit on the tentative, and the Court will conduct the conference as scheduled.
[TENTATIVE] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: CLASS ACTIONS
1. This putative class action has been designated complex pursuant to CRC 3.400(a), and thus requires exceptional judicial management. All provisions of this CMO are deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of Rule 3.400(a), to promote effective decision-making by the Court, establish time limits (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 3.10(d)), and to dispose of the case within 3 years. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 2.2(g).) They are based upon individual consideration of this complex action, including the Joint Complex Status Report previously filed by the parties on July 27, 2026
2. Department 44 Rules. Counsel and parties are ordered to comply with Department 44s Rules and Procedures and Zoom Appearance Protocols, which are available at: https://ventura.courts.ca.gov/department-44.
REMOTE APPEARANCES: Effective July 1, 2026, the Court requires parties to register for each Zoom appearance at the following link by 3:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing: https://ventura-courts-ca.zoom.us/meeting/register/iqN7uhQSQMuOqs-9TQXgEQ. After this date, the Court will no longer accept or monitor e-mails sent to Department 44 for notifications to appear remotely.
Failure to register timely means you will not be admitted to the remote proceeding. No advance notice is required to appear in court in person.
Department 44 does not accommodate Court Call appearances.
2026CUOE063000: JULIE TARANTINO, vs LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
3. Electronic Filing and Service. Effective May 5, 2025, and July 1, 2025, the Ventura County Superior Court mandates the electronic filing and service of documents. (See Administrative Orders 25.03 (Feb. 26, 2025.) & 25.04 (Jun. 27, 2025).)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
4. Mediation. The Parties indicate that they may be open to exploring private mediation. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and if agreeable to all parties schedule a mediation. The parties are further ordered to file a Joint Status Report Re: Mediation Efforts, including whether the Parties have agreed to mediate, the identity of any mediator they may have selected, and the date of any mediation they may have scheduled, no later than 10 days prior to the non-appearance case review.
If the parties agree to a voluntary, informal exchange of discovery prior to mediating, the Court encourages (but does not require or order) the parties to include a verification with each production of discovery so that if the mediation is unsuccessful, the parties will not have to duplicate or repeat this exchange of discovery.
While the Court encourages efforts at early resolution, the Court also expects, as a general rule, that the class certification motion will be heard approximately one year after case initiation, or within 18 months after case initiation in the event the parties engage in early mediation as explained in the paragraph below entitled Class Certification Motion.
A Non-Appearance Case Review re mediation efforts is set for October 5, 2026 at 8:40 AM, Department 44.
5. Arbitration.
The Parties are unaware of any relevant arbitration agreements and/or class action waiver clauses.
6. Phased Discovery. Formal discovery is STAYED and shall be phased as provided herein. Once Defendant files and serves an answer or, if applicable, after the Court rules any pleading challenge, the Court will permit class certification discovery only. Merits-based discovery will be allowed after a successful class certification motion. If there is a dispute concerning whether a given discovery request is certification or merits-based, the parties are to jointly request an informal discovery conference in accordance with Department 44s rules and Ventura County Superior Court, Local Rule 8.10.
Informal discovery is permitted at any time.
If the parties schedule a mediation to occur before January 29, 2027, and if the parties wish to extend the stay on formal discovery beyond Defendants filing of an answer, the parties may file a stipulation and proposed order extending the stay on formal discovery until completion of mediation, and the Court will likely approve such stipulation.
2026CUOE063000: JULIE TARANTINO, vs LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
7. Class List Discovery. The decision in In Re Insurance Installment Fee cases (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1426-1429, held that the notice procedure prescribed by the trial court and followed by the defendant was necessary to protect privacy rights under the California Constitution. Therefore, upon the Courts lifting of the stay on class certification discovery, the parties shall use the procedure described in Belaire-West Landscape v Superior Court (2008) 149 Cal.App.4th 554 to notify putative class members, as described in the applicable paragraph of the currently operative complaint, giving them the opportunity to opt out.
The parties must share the cost of the procedure equally. a. Plaintiff is to take the lead and prepare a proposed letter to be sent out by the agreed-upon third party administrator. The parties must discuss and settle upon a final version. b. The letter must be written using the administrators letterhead, not that of any party. c. The defense must turn over the contact information consisting of name, address, phone number, and email address (if available) to the third-party administrator. d. In the event the putative class list is greater than 400 people, the administrator must randomly select a sample of no more than 400.
The contact information for those persons who did not opt out must be turned over to the plaintiff.
8. Payroll Records Discovery. Responses to any payroll record discovery requests must be uniquely numbered and redacted so that putative class members identifying information, i.e., name, social security numbers, etc. are not revealed.
9. Stipulated Protective & ESI Orders. The parties are encouraged to submit stipulated proposed protective orders and orders concerning the handling of ESI for the Courts review. By way of example of a protective order, the Court refers the parties to the model protective orders published by the Los Angeles Superior Court at https://www.lacourt.ca.gov/pages/lp/civil/tp/civil-case-types-and-specialty-courtrooms/cp/compl ex-civil-litigation. The parties may use the LASC model protective orders as published, or as a template subject to modifications. If modified, the parties shall include a redlined courtesy copy to be lodged with the court at the time of filing. The parties must use the redlined version to identify any changes proposed to the model order.
10. Class Certification Motion. Within 30 days of this order, Plaintiff is directed to select a class certification motion hearing date on a Thursday in May 2027 at 8:20 a.m. This hearing date shall be the deadline for the hearing of the class certification motion, and may not be extended except by court order. Plaintiff shall meet and confer with Defendant before selecting a hearing date. The format and time for service of the papers in support of or in opposition to the motion shall be in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.764, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The parties may make a stipulated request for an order concerning a briefing schedule that differs from Rule 3.764. At
2026CUOE063000: JULIE TARANTINO, vs LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
least 10 days prior to the non-appearance case review, the parties are to file a joint report detailing the class certification motion hearing deadline and briefing schedule.
A Non-Appearance Case Review re Class Certification Motion Hearing Deadline and Briefing Schedule is Set for October 5, 2026, 8:40 a.m., Department 44.
11. Informal Discovery Conferences. The Court invites the parties to request an informal discovery conference in accordance with Department 44s rules and Local Rule 8.10. IDCs are conducted from chambers via Zoom.
12. Related Cases. The joint report indicates that Plaintiff filed a PAGA-only action against Defendant, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 2026CUOE066633 on May 26, 2026.
In addition, there is one pending case, Michelle Dubinski, et al. v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center, filed August 25, 2021, Ventura County Superior Court case number 202100557490CUOE. On July 8, 2025, this Court entered a Judgment and Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement in the Dubinski action. The settlement resolved claims for several classes of employees, the Los Robles Nurse Class, the Parallon Nurse Class, the Meal and Rest Period Premium Class, and a Wage Statement Class.
The parties are to file a joint statement concerning the import of the Dubinski judgment on this case, and why the PAGA-only case should not be consolidated with this action at least 10 days prior to the non-appearance case review.
The Court hereby sets a Non-Appearance Case Review re Consolidation and Prior Litigation on October 5, 2026, at 8:40 am in Department 44.
13. Potential Related Cases. Counsel are ordered to file and serve a Notice of Related Case for any potentially related cases pursuant California Rule of court Rule 3.300, including any PAGA case involving the same representative plaintiff. This is a continuing obligation on both plaintiffs and defendants while this case is pending.
14. Settlement. In the event the parties reach a settlement, Plaintiff shall file a notice of settlement on Judicial Council form CM-200, a mandatory form. If settlement includes dismissal of class action claims (such as a PAGA only settlement or an individual settlement), then Plaintiff must comply with CRC 3.769 and 3.770 in order to obtain dismissal of class claims. Do NOT use Judicial Council Form Civ-110, Request for Dismissal.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, and to file a proof of service of such notice within 5 days. IT IS SO ORDERED.
4