Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/31/2020 at 21:39:40 (UTC).

FRANCISCO CONEJO ET AL VS VERTEX TRANSPORTATION INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/15/2016 FRANCISCO CONEJO filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against VERTEX TRANSPORTATION INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHAEL P. LINFIELD. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7218

  • Filing Date:

    01/15/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MICHAEL P. LINFIELD

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MONTEZUMA ROGELIO

CONEJO FRANCISCO

MOYA OCTAVIO

ZASUETA JUAN

Defendants and Respondents

VERTEX TRANSPORTATION INC.

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

ALDA RAYMOND

SQUARE ONE LOGISTICS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

REISNER & KING LLP

REISNER ADAM

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SADEDDIN RICHARD

LARSEN WILLIS & WOODARD LLP

RICHARD N. SADEDDIN LAW GROUP

SADEDDIN RICHARD N

 

Court Documents

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE OF TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF NATE LOAKES, ESQ.; EXHIBITS

6/27/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE OF TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF NATE LOAKES, ESQ.; EXHIBITS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: BANKRUPTCY; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

6/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: BANKRUPTCY; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER STRIKING THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER

12/17/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER STRIKING THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES NOT DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY

12/30/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES NOT DISCLOSED IN DISCOVERY

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS AND/OR POLICE REPORTS FILED AGAINST PLAINTIFFS MONTEZUMA AND MOYA.

12/30/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACCUSATIONS AND/OR POLICE REPORTS FILED AGAINST PLAINTIFFS MONTEZUMA AND MOYA.

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/30/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Motion in Limine - Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2

11/13/2018: Motion in Limine - Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2

Motion in Limine - Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 4

11/13/2018: Motion in Limine - Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 4

Minute Order - Minute Order (Final Status Conference)

11/27/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Final Status Conference)

SUMMONS -

1/15/2016: SUMMONS -

GENERAL DENIAL TO THE COMPLAINT

2/26/2016: GENERAL DENIAL TO THE COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

5/9/2016: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL - CIVIL

10/21/2016: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL - CIVIL

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

11/8/2016: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

Minute Order -

6/6/2017: Minute Order -

1.LARSEN WILLIS & WOODARD, LLP'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER (A) GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (B) SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON THE MOTION; ETC.

9/29/2017: 1.LARSEN WILLIS & WOODARD, LLP'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER (A) GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (B) SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON THE MOTION; ETC.

NOTICE OF RULING RE: LARSEN, WILLIS & WOODARD, LLP'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER (A) GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (B) SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING

10/2/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE: LARSEN, WILLIS & WOODARD, LLP'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER (A) GRANTING MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (B) SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY?S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

10/23/2017: ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY?S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

76 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/18/2020
  • Hearing09/18/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Default Prove Up Hearing

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 34; Default Prove Up Hearing - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 34; Conference (telephonic) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Conference telephonic)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Default Prove Up Hearing - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Conference (telephonic) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2020
  • Docketat 1:58 PM in Department 34; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/13/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 34; Default Prove Up Hearing - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
152 More Docket Entries
  • 02/16/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) RACEINATIONAL ORIGIN HARASSMENT, VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE 12940 ET SEQ.; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Francisco Conejo (Plaintiff); Rogelio Montezuma (Plaintiff); Octavio Moya (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC607218    Hearing Date: January 06, 2020    Dept: 34

On December 18, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte to strike the answers of Defendants VERTEX TRANSPORTATION INC and SQUARE ONE LOGISTICS INC. because both of these corporations have been suspended. At that time, the Court indicated that if the defendant corporations were reinstated, the Court would proceed with trial on January 13, 2020; if the defendants were not reinstated, Plaintiffs would proceed by default.

The Court has received Plaintiffs’ FSC documents, but has not received any FSC documents from Defendants. It appears that the defendant corporations have not been reinstated. Therefore, instead of a trial, Plaintiffs would need to proceed by default.

Plaintiffs should therefore file the necessary documents for Entry of Default Judgement. If these documents are submitted forthwith, the Court will attempt to have a ruling by the time of the trial on January 13, 2020.

(The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief concerns Plaintiffs Conejo, Montezuma and Moya. It does not appear to mention Plaintiff Zasueta. Therefore it is not clear to the Court whether Mr. Zasueta is still a Plaintiff in this case. This issue should be addressed in whatever documents are filed as part of Plaintiff’s Entry of Default Judgement package.)