This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/16/2019 at 15:18:52 (UTC).

CARMEN LIZA VS CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS INC

Case Summary

On 06/22/2017 CARMEN LIZA filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS 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 MARC MARMARO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6232

  • Filing Date:

    06/22/2017

  • 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

MARC MARMARO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LIZA CARMEN

Defendants and Respondents

CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS INC

DOES 1 TO 20

CARL'S JR. RESTAURATNS LLC DOE 1

AKASH MANAGEMENT LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ELIHU KAVEH S. ESQ.

PANOSIAN SYLVIA V.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.

KOZEYCHUK ULIANA A

GRUVER ERICA H. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT CARL'S JR. RESTAURANTS, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

9/14/2018: DEFENDANT CARL'S JR. RESTAURANTS, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

DEFENDANT CARL'S JR. RESTAURANTS, LLC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

9/14/2018: DEFENDANT CARL'S JR. RESTAURANTS, LLC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Request for Judicial Notice

11/5/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Demurrer

11/5/2018: Demurrer

Objection

11/30/2018: Objection

Reply

12/6/2018: Reply

Reply

12/6/2018: Reply

Minute Order

1/22/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

2/6/2019: Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

2/6/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

3/21/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Unknown

3/21/2019: Unknown

Answer

4/2/2019: Answer

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

3/23/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

8/4/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Unknown

9/5/2017: Unknown

Unknown

9/20/2017: Unknown

CIVIL DEPOSIT

9/20/2017: CIVIL DEPOSIT

79 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; (Motion for Judgment) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Carl's Jr. Restauratns LLC Doe 1 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Akash Management, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Answer; Filed by CKE Restaurants Holdings Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike ((First Amended Complaint)) - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
111 More Docket Entries
  • 09/05/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • Answer; Filed by CKE Restaurants Holdings Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • DEFENDANT CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF CARMEN LIZA'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Carmen Liza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Carmen Liza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV'T CODE 12940 ET SEQ.; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Carmen Liza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC666232    Hearing Date: September 18, 2020    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: September 18, 2020

CASE NUMBER: BC666232

CASE NAME: Carmen Liza v. CKE Restaurant Holdings, Inc.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Carmen Liza

OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant, Akash Management, LLC

TRIAL DATE: August 24, 2021

MOTION: Motion to Compel Further Response Inspection Demand from Plaintiff

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

OPPOSITION: September 4, 2020

REPLY: None as of September 17, 2020

TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion is denied. The requests for sanctions are denied.

Plaintiff to give notice.

__________________

Background

This action arises out of Plaintiff, Carmen Liza’s (“Plaintiff”) employment with at a Carl’s Jr. Restaurant, “Unit 66”. Defendant, CKE Restaurant Holdings, Inc. (“CKE”), Carl’s Jr. Restaurants, LLC (“CJR”) and Akash Management, LLC (“Akash”) allegedly own and operate chains of restaurants, including Carl’s Jr restaurants. Further, Akash was allegedly an agent, joint employer and/or alter ego of CJR and/or CKE, and that a unity of interest and ownership exists amongst all of them.

According to Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff was hired by CKE and CJR as a cook in or about November 2014 and performed satisfactorily. Thereafter, Plaintiff suffered an injury on or about March 6, 2016 and was placed on medical leave until April 24, 2016. The FAC alleges that while Plaintiff continued to recover and requested reasonable accommodations to facilitate her return to work, CKE and CJR refused to provide these accommodations and eventually terminated her prior to her April 24, 2016 return date. Finally, the FAC specifically alleges with respect to Akash that Akash allegedly acquired Unit 66 on April 18, 2016, and that “practically all former employees of Unit 66 except for Plaintiff maintained their previous positions.”

Plaintiff’s FAC alleges nine causes of action as follows: (1) discrimination violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”) (Government Code §§12940, et seq.), (2) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA, (5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (7) declaratory judgment, (8) failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records (Labor Code §§1198.5, 226(c)(f) and 432), (9) failure to hire in violation of the FEHA. The ninth cause of action is alleged against Akash only, while the remaining causes of action are alleged against all defendants.

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses from Akash to Requests for Production, Set Two, numbers 39, 41 and 42. Akash opposes the motion.

Procedural History

Plaintiff served Akash with Requests for Production, Set Two on August 20, 2019. (Declaration of Rhett T. Francisco (“Francisco”), ¶ 6, Exhibit 3.) Akash served its responses on September 24, 2019 by mail. (Francisco Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit 4.)

On January 15, 2020, Akash served further responses to Requests for Production, Set Two following the parties’ meet and confer efforts regarding Akash’s initial responses. (Francisco Decl. ¶ 9, Exhibit 6.)

The Parties’ Meet and Confer Efforts

A motion to compel further responses “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., )  “[A] reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel….  Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.”  (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 (Clement).)  

Plaintiff’s counsel Rhett Francisco attests that on October 24, 2019, he sent a meet and confer letter to Defense counsel regarding Defendant’s allegedly deficient initial responses. (Francisco Decl. ¶ 8, Exhibit 5.) However, Francisco does not attest to further meeting and conferring between receiving Akash’s supplemental responses and filing the instant motion. Further, the October 24, 2019 letter also does not mention requesting any extension on Plaintiff’s initial motion to compel deadline, which would have been December 10, 2019. The instant motion was filed on January 27, 2020, twelve days after Plaintiff receive Akash’s further responses.

Further, Akash argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied for failure to meet and confer in good faith. Akash’s counsel, Miko Sargizian (“Sargizian”) attests that “Prior to filing this motion, Plaintiff never picked up the telephone to meet and confer, or send any other correspondence either through email, fax or through the US mail.” (Sargizian Decl. ¶¶ 8-10.)

The court notes that there appears to be more than one version of Akash’s January 15, 2020 responses. Exhibit 6 to the Francisco Declaration, which indicates that it is Akash’s Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, only includes a further response to request number 40. However, Exhibit B to the Sargizian Declaration indicates that it is also Akash’s Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two, and includes further responses to both requests 39 and 40.

Plaintiff’s motion contains no statement of meeting and conferring with respect to the supplemental responses that are the subject of this motion. A motion to compel further responses “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).)  Defendant asserts that there was no communication from Plaintiff regarding this motion. The failure to meet and confer and to file a declaration confirming a meet and confer is a ground to deny a discovery motion.

Discussion

  1. Timeliness of Motions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (c), a motion to compel further responses to inspection demands must be filed within 45 days of service of the verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, with additional time allowed for the manner of service. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013, subd. (a); 2031.310, subd. (c).) The 45-day requirement of Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.310, subdivision (c) is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on a motion to compel further responses to discovery other than to deny the motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 (Sexton).)

As discussed above, Akash served its further responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Two on January 15, 2020. Thus, the deadline to move to compel based on Akash’s further responses was March 5, 2020. The instant motion was filed on January 27, 2020 and is thus timely.

  1. Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel Akash to provide a further response to Requests 39, 41 and 42. These requests provide as follows:

Number 39: The assignment and assumption agreement RELATING TO the 2016 divestiture of Carl’s Jr. Unit 66.

Number 41: Any and all DOCUMENTS sent to the employees contained on the LIST OF EMPLOYEES received by AKASH before the closing date of the 2016 divestiture.

Number 42: Any and all DOCUMENTS sent to the employees contained on the LIST OF EMPLOYEES received by AKASH after the closing date of the 2016 divestiture.

(see Separate Statement in Support of Motion, p. 1-7.)

There are several factual discrepancies between the parties that could and should have been resolved in the meet and confer process. Since Plaintiff did not comply with Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Monetary Sanctions

The court may impose sanctions against any party for engaging in conduct constituting a “misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 (a).) Misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 (d).)

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the total amount of $5,255.90 in connection with this motion. In opposition, Akash requests sanctions in the amount of $8,920 on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to meet and confer in good faith.

The court finds that there is some fault on each side, which would make the award of sanctions in the circumstances unjues.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion is denied. The requests for sanctions are denied.

Plaintiff to give notice.