Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/16/2019 at 13:12:48 (UTC).

BLADIMIR ROSALES VS. GUATEMALTECA BAKERY, INC., ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/23/2015 BLADIMIR ROSALES filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against GUATEMALTECA BAKERY, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT, RUSSELL STEVEN KUSSMAN and VIRGINIA KEENY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3475

  • Filing Date:

    10/23/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT

RUSSELL STEVEN KUSSMAN

VIRGINIA KEENY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ROSALES BLADIMIR

Defendants

DE LA ROSA ROSA

DOES 1-20

GKR RESTAURANTS INC.

GUATEMALTECA BAKERY INC.

REYES GERARDO

GUATEMALTECA BAKERY INC

ROSA ROSA DE LA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ELIOT SARA

ABDOLHOSSEINI TINA H.

 

Court Documents

Complaint

10/23/2015: Complaint

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

3/22/2016: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection

5/27/2016: Notice of Rejection

Unknown

5/27/2016: Unknown

Unknown

5/30/2017: Unknown

Notice of Rejection

5/30/2017: Notice of Rejection

Unknown

6/1/2017: Unknown

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

6/9/2017: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Unknown

6/14/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

10/24/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

12/19/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

1/2/2018: Minute Order

Other -

2/2/2018: Other -

Unknown

3/7/2018: Unknown

Unknown

5/1/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

6/6/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/25/2018: Minute Order

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

1/9/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

60 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension) (Failure to File Default Judgment) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Default Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Declaration (name extension) (Declaration of Tina Abdolhosseini); Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Brief (name extension) (Plaintiff's brief Summary of the case); Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension) (Failure to File Default Judgment) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2018
  • Minute Order ((Ex-Parte Proceedings)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
93 More Docket Entries
  • 03/11/2016
  • at 08:30 AM in Department Q; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Not held-No appearances) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2016
  • Minute order entered: 2016-03-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2016
  • Request-Dismissal-Partial; Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2016
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2016
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Bladimir Rosales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: LC103475    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: W

rosales v. guatemalteca bakery, inc., et al.

motion for reconsideration and HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

Date of Hearing: July 1, 2020 Trial Date: N/A

Department: W Case No.: LC103475

Moving Party: Defendants GKR Restaurants, Inc. and Gerardo Reyes

Responding Party: Plaintiff Bladimir Rosales

BACKGROUND

In November 2014, Plaintiff Bladimir Rosales was hired by Defendants Guatemalteca Bakery, Inc. and/or GKR Restaurants, Inc. as a baker. Defendants Gerardo Reyes and Rosa de La Rosa were on-site managers at all relevant times. Plaintiff alleges de La Rosa insulted Plaintiff about his Salvadorian nationality, sexual orientation, and religious practices. Plaintiff further alleges he reported the behavior to Defendant Reyes, but no action was taken to stop the harassment. Plaintiff was terminated on January 15, 2015.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 23, 2015 for wrongful termination, labor violations, negligent hiring, religious discrimination, national origin discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On March 8, 2016 and May 27, 2016, Plaintiff dismissed Defendants Guatemalteca Bakery, Inc. and Rosa de La Rosa, respectively.

Defaults were entered against Defendants GKR Restaurants, Inc. and Reyes on June 14, 2017. Default judgment was entered May 13, 2019.

On January 21, 2020, the court denied Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default. Defendants now move for reconsideration. Plaintiffs oppose.

Defendants have also filed a claim of exemption. Plaintiffs oppose.

[Tentative] Ruling:

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Defendants’ Claim of Exemption is CONTINUED.

Discussion

Motion for Reconsideration

Defendants move this court to reconsider its January 21, 2020 order denying Defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment on the grounds that new or different facts and circumstances exist that were not presented in the motion to set aside default.

A motion for reconsideration must be based on “new or different facts, circumstances, or law”; facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not “new or different.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) “According to the plain language of the statute, a court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) In addition, a party must provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to offer the evidence in the first instance. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 213.)

The new or different facts or circumstances offered by Defendants are the declarations of Defendant Reyes and his insurance agent, Dolores Hernandez, that support Defendants’ position that Defendants did provide the summons and complaint to Hernandez, but upon discovering Defendants did not have insurance coverage, Hernandez became focused on obtaining insurance for the Defendants and cannot recall what happened with the summons and complaint. Defendants contend this evidence could not be presented earlier because of the time constraints of filing a motion to set aside.

The explanation Defendants provide to demonstrate that the evidence could not have been provided sooner is essentially that filing the motion to set aside as soon as possible weighed against the time constraints for receiving the pertinent information, i.e., a declaration from Defendants’ insurance agent attesting that she received the summons and complaint from Defendant Reyes and the dates of communication Reyes had with Hernandez.

However, as the court discussed in its January 21, 2020 Minute Order, more than two years have passed since default was entered against Defendants. Under CCP §473, the relief sought cannot exceed six months either after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. As Defendants were already a year and a half too late, Defendants have not shown why they could not have waited to obtain the phone records or submit any declaration by their insurance agent before filing the motion to set aside default.

Assuming arguendo that Defendants have provided a satisfactory explanation for failing to offer the evidence in the first place, the Hernandez and Reyes declarations do not explain and ultimately do not excuse Defendants’ conduct. Hernandez declares that after speaking with Defendant Reyes (presumably about the summons and complaint), she discovered that Defendant Reyes did not have coverage. (Hernandez Decl. ¶6.) She then became focused on ascertaining why Defendants were not covered and does not recall what was done with the paperwork. (Hernandez Decl. ¶6.) Defendant Reyes declares that after speaking with Hernandez, he left with the impression that she would forward the summons and complaint to the appropriate persons at the insurance company to handle the matter. (Reyes Decl. ¶7.)

This does not explain why Defendants failed to follow up with their insurance agent after receiving a second set of service documents two months after being initially served as well as after receiving several notices of request for default. As stated in the January 21, 2020 Minute Order, Defendant Reyes’ statement that he received none of these documents strains credulity. Each proof of service and declaration of mailing provide the same address where Defendants were initially served. As such, Defendants’ neglect in attending the matter is inexcusable.

Furthermore, Defendant by their own admission has stated it has been difficult to try to obtain all information related to this case as it has been over four years since Plaintiff initiated this action. (Reyes Decl. ¶9.) As such, it is evident that the Plaintiff will be prejudiced by the Defendants claimed excusable neglect. Although Defendant Reyes also states all individuals employed by GKR Restaurants, Inc. in 2015, including Rosa de La Rosa, continue to work for GKR Restaurants, Inc., the court finds too long has passed and memories fade. Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to depose any witnesses since initiating the lawsuit over four years ago and evidence may have been lost since then.

As such, Plaintiff has been prejudiced by the late request and any negligence by Defendants cannot be excused. Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Claim of Exemption

“The claim of exemption is deemed controverted by the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and both shall be received in evidence. If no other evidence is offered, the court, if satisfied that sufficient facts are shown by the claim of exemption (including the financial statement if one is required) and the notice of opposition, may make its determination thereon. If not satisfied, the court shall order the hearing continued for the production of other evidence, oral or documentary.” (CCP §703.580.)

Judgment Debtor Gerardo Reyes has failed to submit evidence that it is his personal account that is being levied. Judgment Creditor Rosales claims that he is levying GKR Restaurant, Inc.’s bank account, which is a corporate bank account. As such, the exemption does not apply as they may only be applied to the property of a natural person. (CCP §703.020(a).) The Bakery is a corporation and not a natural person. If Reyes is complaining that this a personal account is being levied, the court may consider the exemptions under C.C.P. Section 704.070 (paid earnings) and 706.050 (disposable earnings).

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where GUATEMALTECA BAKERY INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORTION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ELIOT SARA

Latest cases represented by Lawyer TINA ABDOLHOSSEINI H.