This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/05/2019 at 08:58:47 (UTC).

JASIMINE ESTES VS CVS PHARMACY INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/23/2015 JASIMINE ESTES filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against CVS PHARMACY 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 ROBERT L. HESS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8644

  • Filing Date:

    10/23/2015

  • 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

ROBERT L. HESS

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ESTES JASIMINE

Defendants

ASHKAR GHADA

CVS PHARMACY INC.

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

STERN BRANDI

TRAN LIZA

TRAN ELIZABETH

CVS RX SERVICES INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BOHM LAW GROUP

BOHM LAWRANCE ALEXANDER

Defendant Attorneys

LITTLER MENDELSON PC

BROWN JEFFREY K

PATTON AMY R ESQ.

 

Court Documents

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

1/9/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

1/11/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

2/9/2018: JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

6/21/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8/6/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Stipulation - No Order

10/23/2018: Stipulation - No Order

Motion to Continue Trial Date

1/3/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/22/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

VERIFICATION OF ELIZABETH TRAN RE: DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.

2/19/2016: VERIFICATION OF ELIZABETH TRAN RE: DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES.

PROOF OF SERVICE

2/19/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE

VERIFICATION OF BRANDI STERN RE: DEFENDANTS? ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF?S VERIFIED FIRST AIMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2/19/2016: VERIFICATION OF BRANDI STERN RE: DEFENDANTS? ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF?S VERIFIED FIRST AIMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

VERIFICATION OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. RE: DEFENDANTS? ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF?S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2/19/2016: VERIFICATION OF CVS PHARMACY, INC. RE: DEFENDANTS? ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF?S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Minute Order

2/29/2016: Minute Order

DEFENDANT CVS RX SERVICES, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

12/15/2016: DEFENDANT CVS RX SERVICES, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Minute Order

1/4/2017: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

4/18/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

9/1/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

9/8/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

45 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 24; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by Ghada Ashkar (Defendant); Liza Tran (Defendant); Brandi Stern (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by Ghada Ashkar (Defendant); Liza Tran (Defendant); Brandi Stern (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • at 08:33 AM in Department 24; Non-Appearance Case Review (Plaintiff's Report re Settlement) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (Defendant); Ghada Ashkar (Defendant); Liza Tran (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
93 More Docket Entries
  • 02/16/2016
  • Receipt-Depository; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2015
  • PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1) DISCRIMINATION, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Jasimine Estes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1) DISCRIMINATION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC598644    Hearing Date: January 30, 2020    Dept: 24

Defendant CVS Rx Services Inc.’s motion for summary adjudication pursuant to CCP section 437c(t) is DENIED.

On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff Jasimine Estes filed the instant employment action against Defendants CVS Rx Services Inc. (“CVS”), Ghada Ashkar, Elizabeth Tran, and Brandi Stern. Her operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) states eleven causes of action for: 1) discrimination; 2) harassment; 3) retaliation; 4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, retaliation; 5) retaliation in violation of CFRA; 6) refusal to conduct good faith interactive process; 7) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; 8) violations of Lab. Code §§ 1102.5 and 98.6; 9) violations of Lab. Code § 6310; 10) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; and 11) adverse action in violation of public policy.

The individual defendants Ghada Ashkar, Elizabeth Tran, and Brandi Stern were dismissed with prejudice on December 24, 2019. Trial is currently set for August 24, 2020.

On September 6, 2019, CVS moved for summary adjudication pursuant to CCP section 437c(t). The motion was initially set to be heard on November 20, 2019. The hearing on the motion was continued to January 30, 2020. On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition. No reply was submitted. CVS’s summary judgment/adjudication motion is currently set to be heard on February 19, 2020.

Discussion

Here, Defendant moves to adjudicate various issues concerning Plaintiff’s DFEH letters and allegations occurring prior to the statute of limitations. It is undisputed that these issues do not dispose of an entire cause of action, but only assess factual allegations of the FAC. Normally, a motion for summary adjudication requires disposal of an entire cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for damages, or issue of duty. (CCP § 437c(f)(1).) A party may move for adjudication of an issue that does not completely dispose of one of the above under very specific circumstances and requirements. CCP section 437c(t), which governs such a motion, provides in part:

(1) (A) Before filing a motion pursuant to this subdivision, the parties whose claims or defenses are put at issue by the motion shall submit to the court both of the following:

(i) A joint stipulation stating the issue or issues to be adjudicated.

(ii) A declaration from each stipulating party that the motion will further the interest of judicial economy by decreasing trial time or significantly increasing the likelihood of settlement.

(Emphasis Added.)

Here, Defendant failed to supply the required joint stipulation and declaration. Plaintiff opposes and clearly will not stipulate. There are further procedural requirements that were also not met. (See CCP § 437c(t)(2)-(4).) Therefore, the motion fails at to outset and no further discussion is required.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.