This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/24/2019 at 12:20:09 (UTC).

YOLANDA MORENO GONZALEZ VS UNIVERSAL MOLDING COMPANY

Case Summary

On 10/07/2016 YOLANDA MORENO GONZALEZ filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against UNIVERSAL MOLDING COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GAIL FEUER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6685

  • Filing Date:

    10/07/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GAIL FEUER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

GONZALEZ YOLANDA MORENO

DOMINGUEZ MORENO

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

UNIVERSAL MOLDING COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF RAMIN R. YOUNESSI A.P.L.C

YOUNESSI RAMIN RAY

Defendant Attorney

JACKSON JAMES T. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

12/21/2017: Minute Order

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

2/2/2018: UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

I4OTCE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

7/25/2018: I4OTCE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

Minute Order

9/17/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/13/2019: Minute Order

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV?T CODE ?1294O ET SEQ.; ETC

10/7/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV?T CODE ?1294O ET SEQ.; ETC

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/4/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/23/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Unknown

12/19/2016: Unknown

Unknown

1/23/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

1/23/2017: NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

Minute Order

2/6/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

3/21/2017: NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

RULING RE: DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL MOLDING COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.

4/5/2017: RULING RE: DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL MOLDING COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.

DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED LIST OF ARBITRATORS

12/7/2017: DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED LIST OF ARBITRATORS

Minute Order

12/12/2017: Minute Order

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO PLAINTIFF'S LIST OF ARBITRATORS

12/18/2017: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO PLAINTIFF'S LIST OF ARBITRATORS

PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OF DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED LIST OF ARBITRATORS

12/19/2017: PLAINTIFF'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OF DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED LIST OF ARBITRATORS

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; (Status Hearing) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Legacy Event Type : Status Hearing)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Declaration (OF STEPHEN J. DURON RE: POST ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE); Filed by Yolanda Moreno Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Unknown Event Type - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-17 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by Yolanda Moreno Gonzalez (Plaintiff); Moreno Dominguez (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2018
  • DECLARATION OF SAMANTHA L. ORTIZ RE: POST ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2018
  • I4OTCE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
52 More Docket Entries
  • 12/19/2016
  • Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Yolanda Moreno Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV T CODE 1294O ET SEQ.; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Yolanda Moreno Gonzalez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC636685 Hearing Date: September 10, 2021 Dept: 78

\r\n\r\n

Superior Court of California

\r\n\r\n

County of Los Angeles

\r\n\r\n

Department 78

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

YOLANDA\r\n MORENO GONZALEZ; \r\n \r\n

\r\n

Plaintiff,

\r\n

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

\r\n

UNIVERSAL\r\n MOLDING COMPANY, et al.;\r\n \r\n

\r\n

Defendants.

\r\n
\r\n

Case\r\n No.:

\r\n
\r\n

BC636685

\r\n
\r\n

Hearing Date:

\r\n
\r\n

September 10, 2021

\r\n
\r\n

[TENTATIVE] RULING

\r\n
\r\n

Defendant Universal molding company’s petition to confirm arbitration\r\n award

\r\n

plaintiff yolanda moreno gonzalez’s petition to vacate or alter\r\n arbitration award

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Universal Molding Company’s\r\nPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Yolanda Moreno Gonzalez’s\r\nPetition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

procedural history

\r\n\r\n

On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff Yolanda\r\nMoreno Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) filed the Complaint, alleging 14 causes of action:

\r\n\r\n
  1. FEHA\r\ndiscrimination

  2. FEHA\r\nretaliation

  3. FEHA\r\nfailure to prevent discrimination and retaliation

  4. Retaliation\r\n(Gov. Code § 12945.2)

  5. FEHA\r\nfailure to provide reasonable accommodations

  6. FEHA\r\nfailure to engage in the interactive process

  7. Wrongful\r\ntermination in violation of public policy

  8. Declaratory\r\njudgment

  9. Failure\r\nto pay wages

  10. Failure to provide itemized wage and\r\nhour statements

  11. Waiting time penalties

  12. Failure to permit inspection of\r\npersonnel and payroll records

  13. Unfair competition

  14. Conversion

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

On April 5, 2017, Judge Feuer granted\r\nDefendant Universal Molding Company (“Universal”)’s Motion to Compel\r\nArbitration, and stayed this action.

\r\n\r\n

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff\r\nrequested to dismiss the 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th,\r\nand 14th causes of action, which the Court granted on September 26,\r\n2019.

\r\n\r\n

On July 2021 the arbitrator issued her Arbitration\r\nAward.

\r\n\r\n

On August 6, 2021, Universal filed the\r\ninstant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

\r\n\r\n

On August 13, 2021, Gonzalez filed an\r\n“Objection to Proposed Judgment; Request for a Hearing.” Gonzalez also filed a\r\n“Notice of Hearing on Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award.”[1]

\r\n\r\n

On August 20, 2021, Universal filed a “Response/Objection\r\nto Plaintiff’s Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award.”

\r\n\r\n

DISCUSSION

\r\n\r\n
  1. PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD/VACATE\r\nARBITRATION AWARD

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has\r\nbeen made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The\r\npetition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name\r\nas respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code Civ.\r\nProc. § 1285.) A petition must include (a) the substance of or have attached a\r\ncopy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence\r\nof such an agreement, (b) the names of the arbitrators, and (c) a copy of the\r\naward and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any. (Code Civ. Proc. §\r\n1285.4.)

\r\n\r\n

A petition to confirm an arbitration award must be\r\nfiled and served within four years of the date of the service of the signed\r\ncopy of the award on the petition, but the petition may not be filed until at\r\nleast ten days after service of signed copy of the award upon the petitioner.\r\n(Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1288, 1288.4.) Service of a petition must be “in the manner\r\nprovided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and\r\nnotice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1290.4.) If the arbitration agreement does not\r\nprovide the manner for service, “[s]ervice within this State shall be made in\r\nthe manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (Code Civ.\r\nProc. § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

“A petition under this title shall be heard in a\r\nsummary way in the manner and upon the notice provided by law for the making\r\nand hearing of motions, except that not less than 10 days' notice of the date\r\nset for the hearing on the petition shall be given.” (Code Civ. Proc. §\r\n1290.2.)

\r\n\r\n

The action was heard by arbitrator the Hon. Judith\r\nChirlin (Ret.) (the “Arbitrator”) with Judicate West on June 14-16, 2021.\r\n(Pet., ¶¶ 7-8.) On July 8,\r\n2021, the Arbitrator issued a final, “Award,” providing that both Gonzalez and\r\nUniversal are to take nothing, and that Plaintiff’s attorney of record is to\r\npay Universal the sum of $20,000. (Pet. ¶ 8, Attach. 8.c.)

\r\n\r\n

Gonzalez\r\nargues in the Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award, that the\r\nArbitrator engaged in misconduct and exceeded her authority such that the award\r\ncannot be fairly corrected. (Pet., ¶ 10.) Gonzalez contends that the arbitrator\r\nexceeded her powers through “disregard of law and fact by refusing to decide on\r\ncritical causes of action despite making reference to it as well as refusal to\r\nhear evidence of Plaintiff’s emotional distress damages,” “disregard for the\r\nlaw by refusing to make a finding as to whether Defendants engaged in the\r\ninteractive process and/or provided Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation,”\r\nand “disregard[] [of] critical\r\nfactual evidence relating to motive of intentional discrimination including\r\nthat he sent a letter of Plaintiff’s leave of absence only after he learned\r\nfrom the Defendant’s workers’ compensation administrator and lawyer that she\r\ncontended that she was terminated.” (Pet., Attach. 1.)

\r\n\r\n

Gonzalez’s\r\nattachment submitted with the Petition essentially seeks a de novo review of\r\nthe case on the grounds that the arbitrator did not view her facts or decide\r\nthe law correctly. However, as held by the court in Richey v. AutoNation,\r\nInc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 909, “Generally, courts cannot review arbitration\r\nawards for errors of fact or law, even when those errors appear on the face of\r\nthe award or cause substantial injustice to the parties.” (Id. at 916;\r\nsee also, Cable\r\nConnection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc.\r\n(2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1360 [“A provision requiring arbitrators to apply the\r\nlaw leaves open the possibility that they are empowered to apply it ‘wrongly as\r\nwell as rightly’ ”].) Further, “[a]rbitrators do not ordinarily exceed their\r\ncontractually created powers simply by reaching an erroneous conclusion on a\r\ncontested issue of law or fact, and arbitral awards may not ordinarily be\r\nvacated because of such error....” (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

Therefore,\r\nthis Court finds that it may not review the arbitration award for any alleged\r\nsubstantive errors in interpretation. There are only narrow exceptions to this\r\ngeneral rule, such as if an arbitrator enforces a contract that is illegal or\r\nvoid, or if the arbitrator misapplies a statute of limitations and deprives the\r\nplaintiff of a hearing on the merits. (Id. at 916-918.) Gonzalez does\r\nnot raise any issues that fall within the exceptions to the general rule that an\r\narbitrator’s decision cannot be reviewed for errors of fact or law.

\r\n\r\n

As to the\r\nPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award, there is no evidence that the\r\narbitrator’s order should be vacated. Universal has included a copy of the\r\nArbitrator’s written award order, as required by Code of Civil Procedure\r\nsection 1285.4, which confirms the Petition’s representations of the Arbitrator’s\r\nAward in the Petition.

\r\n\r\n

Gonzalez also\r\nattacks the inclusion of $20,000 in attorney’s fees in the Award claiming that\r\nit unlawfully awards attorney’s fees to Universal as the prevailing party in\r\nthe arbitration. The $20,000 award, however, was not an award to Universal as\r\nthe prevailing party but instead was ordered on March 25 to 2020 as sanctions\r\nfor discovery abuse. Awarding the $20,000 as sanctions for discovery abuses.\r\nThe Arbitrator clearly had authority to make this award

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly,\r\nUniversal’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Gonzalez’s\r\nPetition to Vacate the Arbitration Award is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

DATED: September 10,\r\n2021

\r\n\r\n

________________________________

\r\n\r\n

Hon. Robert S. Draper

\r\n\r\n

Judge of the Superior Court

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

[1] The Court notes that Plaintiff did not\r\nreserve a hearing for a Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award.

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where UNIVERSAL MOLDING COMPANY A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant