On 09/12/2016 CELIA ALEGRIA filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against IN-N-OUT BURGERS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHAEL JOHNSON and JOSEPH R. KALIN. The case status is Other.
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JOSEPH R. KALIN
DOES 1 THROUGH 20
EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP LLP
MCNAMEE ALLEN G.
LLAGUNO FERMIN H. ESQ.
KIBBE MICHAEL L.
2/16/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINITFF TO GIVE NOTICE
11/1/2018: Minute Order
2/21/2019: Minute Order
5/29/2019: Request for Dismissal
9/12/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV?T CODE ?L294O ET SEQ.; ETC
9/15/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
11/15/2016: DEFENDANTS IN-N-OUT BURGERS' AND HUGO GALVAN'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
4/3/2017: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ARBITRATE AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
4/4/2017: Minute Order
11/29/2017: Minute Order
Request for Dismissal; Filed by Celia Alegria (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Status Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Post-Arbitration Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice (Defendants? Post Arbitration Status Conference Statement); Filed by In-N-Out Burgers (Defendant); Hugo Galvan (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (of Post Arbitration Conference, Final Status Conference and Trial Date)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:31 AM in Department 56; Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DECLARATION OF DAVID C. HOPPER IN SUPORT OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF DUE TO MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE AND/OR EXCLUSABLE NEGLECT UNER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 473; Filed by Celia Alegria (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by In-N-Out Burgers (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANTS IN-N-OUT BURGERS' AND HUGO GALVAN'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by In-N-Out Burgers (Defendant); Hugo Galvan (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV T CODE L294O ET SEQ.; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Celia Alegria (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC633647 Hearing Date: July 14, 2020 Dept: 56
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
CELIA ALEGRIA, etc.,
IN-N-OUT BURGERS, etc., et al.,
CASE NO.: BC633647
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD
Date: July 14, 2020
Time: 8:30 a.m.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant In-N-Out Burgers
The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed.
Plaintiff’s complaint arises from her alleged wrongful termination as an employee of Defendant. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) discrimination in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (2) harassment in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (3) retaliation in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940(k); (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (6) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of California Government Code, Section 12940 et seq.; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (8) declaratory judgment.
On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action and all parties in the action. Dismissal was entered with prejudice on May 29, 2019.
On January 22, 2020, Defendant filed a petition to confirm contractual arbitration award. Defendant’s petition is premised on an agreement to arbitrate between Plaintiff and Defendant entered into on January 6, 2016. (Petition at Attachment 4(b).) According to the final arbitration award issued on April 22, 2019, the arbitrator found that Plaintiff: (1) failed to meet her burden to establish claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent this conduct, failure to accommodate or engage in the good faith interactive process, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and declaratory relief; and (2) Plaintiff would take nothing for her claims. (Id. at Attachment 8(c).) The petition indicates that pursuant to the terms of the award neither party is to pay the other party any sum of money. (Id. at ¶ 8(b)(2).) Defendant requests that the Court confirm the award and enter judgment according to the award. (Id. at ¶ 10(a).)
On April 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to Defendant’s petition to confirm contractual arbitration award. In her notice of non-opposition, Plaintiff contends that she does not agree with the underlying arbitration award; however, Plaintiff indicates that she reserves all rights available to her under applicable law. (Notice of Non-Opposition at 1:24-2:4.)
This action was dismissed against Defendant on May 29, 2019 and a “voluntary unilateral dismissal is considered a termination in favor of the defendant in the underlying action.” (Villa v. Cole (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1335.) Defendant’s petition was filed after this action was dismissed. If Defendant wishes to confirm contractual arbitration award—and Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s petition to confirm contractual arbitration award—Defendant should file a motion to set aside dismissal and then re-file its petition to confirm contractual arbitration award. (Caldwell v. Methodist Hospital (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1521.)
The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s petition to confirm contractual arbitration award.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by CourtCall if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 14th day of July 2020
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases