This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/06/2019 at 03:34:57 (UTC).

KAREEMAH MATEEN-BRADFORD VS. CITY OF COMPTON, ET. AL

Case Summary

On 08/06/2012 KAREEMAH MATEEN-BRADFORD filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against CITY OF COMPTON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BRIAN S. CURREY, WILLIAM BARRY, KELVIN D. FILER and MAURICE A. LEITER. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6769

  • Filing Date:

    08/06/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BRIAN S. CURREY

WILLIAM BARRY

KELVIN D. FILER

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

MATEEN

MATEEN-BRADFORD KAREEMAH

Defendants

CALHOUN BARBARA

CITY OF COMPTON

NORFLEET WILLIE

PERRODIN ERIC

COMPTON CITY OF

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

Others

COMPTON SUPERIOR COURT

RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON

RING BENDER LLP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

WESIERSKI & ZUREK LAW OFFICES OF

LAW OFFICES OF MARCIA L. KRAFT

KRAFT MILES & MILLER LLP

SCHABLOSKI ALYSSA

Defendant Attorneys

ANITA O. AVILES DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY

COMPTON CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE .

RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON

DUPONT NORMAN ARTHUR

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

12/13/2018: Minute Order

Exhibit List

1/18/2019: Exhibit List

Declaration

2/11/2019: Declaration

Notice of Ruling

2/26/2019: Notice of Ruling

Request for Judicial Notice

3/21/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

3/21/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

4/3/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration

4/3/2019: Declaration

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/3/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/3/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Motion in Limine

4/3/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

4/3/2019: Motion in Limine

Declaration

4/3/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

4/4/2019: Minute Order

Notice

7/12/2018: Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/23/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/6/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Unknown

12/13/2018: Unknown

110 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/05/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for a Protective Order, or, in the Alternative, to Specially Set a Hearing Date on a Motion for a Protective Order); Filed by KAREEMAH MATEEN-BRADFORD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 09:09 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Hearing on Motion for...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore ((Lori Lillienfeld)); Filed by COMPTON, CITY OF (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by COMPTON, CITY OF (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Declaration (of Jay A. Tufano ISO MIL No. 3); Filed by COMPTON, CITY OF (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by COMPTON, CITY OF (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Motion in Limine (No. 4 - Exclude Evidece re Harrassing Comments); Filed by COMPTON, CITY OF (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Declaration (of Jay A. Tufano ISO MIL No. 4); Filed by COMPTON, CITY OF (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
1,213 More Docket Entries
  • 11/14/2012
  • Request for Dismissal-Partial; Filed by KAREEMAH MATEEN-BRADFORD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2012
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by KAREEMAH MATEEN-BRADFORD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2012
  • Request for Dismissal-Partial (with prejudice as to Willie Norfleet & Eric Perrodin, only ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2012
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by KAREEMAH MATEEN-BRADFORD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2012
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2012
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2012
  • Complaint; Filed by KAREEMAH MATEEN-BRADFORD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2012
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC026769    Hearing Date: February 18, 2020    Dept: A

# 8. Kareemah Mateen-Bradford v. City of Compton et al.

Case No.: TC026769

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Tax Costs; Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (x3)

Tentative ruling:

I. Background

This case went to trial on May 22, 2019. On June 11, 2019, the jury found for Bradford on her retaliation claim and awarded $655,000 for mental and emotional injuries through April 24, 2016.

Bradford has filed a memorandum of costs and the City has moved to tax those costs. Bradford has been represented by multiple firms since 2012, resulting in three motions for attorneys’ fees. The motions are opposed.

Current Motions:

· Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs

· Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

o Gladius Law, APC

o The Simon Law Group, LLP

· Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

o Kraft Miles, A Law Corporation (formerly Kraft, Miles & Miller, LLP)

· Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

o Wesierski & Zurek, LLP

The court needs additional time to further review the voluminous documents that have been submitted in this matter before issuing a tentative ruling. The motions are to be continued to a date in March agreeable to the parties and the court.

Next dates:

Notice:

Case Number: TC026769    Hearing Date: December 13, 2019    Dept: A

# Kareemah Mateen-Bradford v. City of Compton et al.

Case No.: TC026769

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Tax Costs; Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (x3)

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

This is a wrongful termination action. Plaintiff Kareemah Mateen-Bradford was terminated from her position as Human Resources Director for Defendant City of Compton. Bradford filed suit alleging wrongful termination, harassment, and FEHA claims. Bradford’s union filed a separate petition with the Superior Court (Case No. BS147640) for an order directing the City to proceed with a hearing on Bradford’s administrative appeal of her termination. The parties in that matter agreed to a settlement under which a neutral would conduct an evidentiary hearing and issue a determination as to several issues. The neutral’s decision was in favor of Bradford; she was reinstated to her position with three years’ back pay. 

The case most recently before the Court involved Bradford’s California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims.  The case went to trial on July 11, 2016; on appeal, the Court of Appeal remanded. The error was in a special verdict form that did not allow the jury to determine if discrimination or retaliation was a “substantial motivating reason” behind Bradford’s termination.

Bradford petitioned the Court to enter judgment confirming the decision reached by the neutral (Justice Candace Cooper) hearing on the appeal of her termination. She argued that the proceeding was an arbitration. The petition was denied when the Court found the proceeding to be an administrative hearing. Bradford appealed this order on January 18, 2019. Bradford moved to stay the case pending the appeal. That motion was denied. The City then renewed its motion for summary judgment based on new facts or law. This motion was denied on April 11, 2019. The case went to trial on May 22, 2019. On June 11, 2019, the jury found for Bradford on her retaliation claim and awarded $655,000 for mental and emotional injuries through April 24, 2016.

Bradford has filed a memorandum of costs and the City has moved to tax those costs. Bradford has been represented by multiple firms since 2012, resulting in three motions for attorneys’ fees. The motions are opposed. The motion was continued from their original hearing date at the request of the attorneys.

Current Motions:

  1. Analysis

“ ‘In a contest over what time was reasonably and necessarily spent in preparation of a case, it is obvious that the time that the opposition found necessary to prepare its case would be probative. Each party must prepare to question the same witnesses, must review the same documents and other evidence, and must anticipate a presentation by the opposition of a complexity related to the facts in issue.’ [Citation.]” (In re Tobacco Cases I (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 570, 584–585.)

The Court requires Defense counsel’s billing records for this action to evaluate the reasonableness of time billed by the various attorneys who represented Plaintiff. Defendant is to file these records by December 31, 2019. The hearing on the motion to tax costs and motions for attorneys’ fees is continued to January 28, 2020.

  1. Ruling

The hearing set for Monday, December 16, 2019, is taken off calendar and reset for January 28, 2020 at 9:00 A.M. The Court requires Defense counsel’s billing records for this action to evaluate the reasonableness of time billed by the various attorneys who represented Plaintiff. Defendant is to file these records with the Court by December 31, 2019.

Accordingly, the hearing on the motion to tax costs and motions for attorneys’ fees is continued to January 28, 2020. If this date is impractical for counsel, they are to meet and confer to set a new date, and thereafter clear the new date with the clerk.

Next dates:

Notice: