On 09/14/2015 EDUARDO E RIVAS filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROBERT L. HESS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ROBERT L. HESS
RIVAS EDUARDO E
RIVAS EDUARDO E.
CANNON LEGAL GROUP
ZADRAVECZ STEVEN M. ESQ.
MILLS JASON S.
FITZGERALD BARBARA A. ESQ
QUINN MONICA MARTELLI
8/19/2019: Substitution of Attorney
8/26/2019: Case Management Statement
8/27/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR ((1) PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO REMOVE COUNSEL (2) EX PART...) OF 08/27/2019
9/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE REMITTITUR)
10/3/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)
7/15/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)
5/29/2019: Substitution of Attorney
10/8/2015: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
2/16/2016: ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC. AND ANITA ANDERSON TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
3/18/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
3/29/2016: Minute Order -
3/29/2016: DEFENDANT VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC.'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES (C.C.P. 631]
5/9/2016: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -
6/29/2016: NOTICE OF HEARING RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1/11/2017: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER -
1/13/2017: NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)
8/14/2017: PROPOSED ORDER
Hearing09/21/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing09/10/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing06/24/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing12/10/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest Addendum of Fee Waiver to Include Jury Fees; Filed by Eduardo E. Rivas (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Status Conference (re Remittitur) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase Management Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference re Remittitur)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Ex-Parte ProceedingsRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2016-02-08 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANTS VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC. AND ANITA ANDERSON'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES [C.C.P. 63 1]Read MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFF EDUARDO E. RIVAS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY (CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE); ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Eduardo E. Rivas (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC594595 Hearing Date: August 14, 2020 Dept: 24
On September 14, 2019, Plaintiff Eduardo E. Rivas filed the instant wrongful termination action against Defendants Frontier California Inc. (formerly Verizon California Inc.) and Anita Anderson. The operative First Amended Complaint states eight causes of action for: 1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; 2) harassment based on disability; 3) failure to prevent harassment based on disability; 4) discrimination base don national origin; 5) discrimination based on disability; 6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 7) failure to provide overtime compensation; and 8) failure to provide meal breaks.
On March 6, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff. On March 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
On April 14, 2020, Defendants filed a notice of pendency of bankruptcy for Frontier Communications Corporation and automatic stay. Frontier Communications Corporation and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101–1532 (“Bankruptcy Code”), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (“Bankruptcy Court”). The chapter 11 cases are pending before the Honorable Robert D. Drain, United States Bankruptcy Judge, and joint administration has been requested under the lead case In re Frontier Communications Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-22476 (RDD). Based on this notice, the Court finds that the automatic stay applies, and thus no further action can be taken on this proceeding until the stay is lifted. (11 U.S.C. 362(a)(1).) The Court will set an OSC re: Bankruptcy Stay for February 26, 20201.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: BC594595 Hearing Date: December 10, 2019 Dept: 24
Plaintiff Eduardo E. Rivas’s motion to compel initial discovery responses is DENIED.
On September 14, 2019, Plaintiff Eduardo E. Rivas filed the instant wrongful termination action against Defendants Verizon Communications and Anita Anderson. On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. On November 25, 2019, Defendants filed an opposition.
Where there has been no timely response to a CCP § 2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required.
To the extent that the motion is not mooted by Defendants’ service of responses, the motion would still be denied. (See Parker Decl., ¶¶ 5-7 [Defendants served timely objections and served verified discovery responses, producing 2500 pages of responsive documents].) Plaintiff only provides a single paragraph notice as his moving papers, with no points and authorities. Plaintiff provides no evidence that he duly served any discovery requests, or that none were received. Thus, the basic facts of the motion are not even established. Even if he were to provide such evidence, any sanctions request was not properly made. Plaintiff requests sanctions, but noticed no particular sanctions. Thus, Defendants were not fairly appraised of the sanctions being sought, and none therefore would be imposed.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases