This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 05:24:31 (UTC).

CRISANTA SERRANO VS CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/22/2017 CRISANTA SERRANO filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MALCOLM MACKEY and JOHN P. DOYLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5977

  • Filing Date:

    06/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MALCOLM MACKEY

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SERRANO CRISANTA

Respondents and Defendants

SAMMIS ROBERT

COON SANDRA

CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

DOES 1 TO 100

FINK BRENDA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SHEGERIAN CARNEY R. ESQ.

SHEGERIAN CARNEY RICHARD

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

WALSH DENNIS J. ESQ.

WALSH DENNIS JOHN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/6/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING RE POST MEDIATION STATUS CONFRERENCE

2/7/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE POST MEDIATION STATUS CONFRERENCE

Minute Order

3/14/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/6/2018: Minute Order

ORDER

4/13/2018: ORDER

STIPULATION RE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WIHTOUT LEAVE OF COURT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

4/13/2018: STIPULATION RE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WIHTOUT LEAVE OF COURT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

DECLARATION OF DENNIS J. WALSH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

4/16/2018: DECLARATION OF DENNIS J. WALSH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

DECLARATION OF BRENDA FINK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

4/16/2018: DECLARATION OF BRENDA FINK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

DECLARATION OF ROBERT SAMMIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

4/16/2018: DECLARATION OF ROBERT SAMMIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

4/16/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

4/16/2018: DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

DECLARATION OF ALICE H. CHUNG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

4/16/2018: DECLARATION OF ALICE H. CHUNG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

DEFENDANTS? SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4/16/2018: DEFENDANTS? SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

4/16/2018: PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

4/16/2018: DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/3/2018: AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

5/4/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO'S NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE WITNESSES AT TRIAL (C.C.P. 1987(B)); PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRASO'S NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (C.C.P. ? 1987(C))

5/22/2018: PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO'S NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE WITNESSES AT TRIAL (C.C.P. 1987(B)); PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRASO'S NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (C.C.P. ? 1987(C))

70 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • DocketNotice ( OF ALL-PURPOSE STATUS CONFERENCE AND CONTINUANCE; TRIAL-SETTING CONFERENCE AND OSC RE: DISMISSAL SETTING); Filed by Citrus Community College District (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • DocketNotice (PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO?S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE WITNESSES AT TRIAL (C.C.P. 1987(b)); PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO?S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (C.C.P. 1987(c))); Filed by Crisanta Serrano (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • DocketResponse (TO PLAINTIFF?S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT); Filed by Citrus Community College District (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Docketat 08:32 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Further Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Further Status Confer...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
126 More Docket Entries
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-06-29 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Crisanta Serrano (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO THE HONORABLE MALCOM H. MACKEY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Crisanta Serrano (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PREGNANCY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5977 Hearing Date: May 10, 2022 Dept: 58

Department 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Tentative Ruling

Serrano v. Citrus Community College Dist. ****5977

Hearing date: May 10, 2022

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Deposition Subpoenas

Tentative ruling: Deny motion to quash; modify scope of subpoenas

Plaintiff Crisanta Serrano (Plaintiff or Serrano) moves to quash deposition subpoenas issued by Defendant Citrus Community College District (Defendant or Citrus) to Plaintiff’s past employer, current employer, and medical insurance carrier. The Court limits the scope of the subpoenas and denies the motion to quash.

On June 22, 2017, Serrano filed a complaint against Citrus and other individual defendants alleging fourteen causes of action for, inter alia, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on pregnancy; discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for taking leave under the California Family Rights Act; discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on gender; and for wrongful termination. Plaintiff alleged that due to the work environment at Citrus, she suffered complications in pregnancy, her baby was born with medical issues, and Plaintiff suffered psychological distress and mental and physical pain and anguish. Serrano alleged that as a result of defendants’ conduct, she has also suffered loss of income and will suffer future loss of earnings and damage to her career.

In late 2021, Citrus issued deposition subpoenas to Serrano’s former employer Ketchum University, and her current employer Disney Worldwide Services seeking all employment and personnel records pertaining to Serrano. Citrus also issued a deposition subpoena to Blue Shield of California for all insurance records, claims paid, billing statements, and similar insurance payment information.

In February 2022, Serrano moved to quash the subpoenas contending they were insufficiently particularized, irrelevant, harassing, privileged, and violated her right to privacy. Most of the cases cited by plaintiff in support of her motion are not binding on the Court. Defendant Citrus opposed the motion.

The Court denies the motion to quash. As set forth below, the Court will narrow the temporal scope of the information sought. Moreover, the Court orders that the material produced be subject to the standard Superior Court protective order. Contrary to Serrano’s view, the deposition subpoena is reasonably particularized and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As limited, the request is not harassing. Plaintiff has expressly tendered the issue of her medical and psychological condition. (Evid. Code, 996, 1016.) Serrano’s right to privacy is not absolute. She has no reasonable expectation to privacy regarding her medical and emotional condition based on tendering the issues in litigation, the deposition subpoenas are not a serious invasion of her privacy rights, her privacy interests are adequately met with a protective order, and under that order, the truth-seeking function of the court is a significant countervailing interest that outweighs her privacy interests. Serrano’s argument that the discovery seeks character evidence is premature and an invalid objection to discovery.

Although the motion to quash is denied, the production shall be subject to the Court’s standard protective order, which counsel are ordered to execute and file within fifteen days of this order. The subpoena to Ketchum shall be limited to documents and things concerning the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018. The subpoena to Disney shall be limited to documents and things concerning the period January 1, 2019 to the present.

The Court declines to award attorney’s fees. The Court concludes that reasonable minds may differ on issues involving privilege and privacy; the Court finds that Plaintiff’s position, while incorrect, was not without substantial justification.

So Ordered.



Case Number: ****5977    Hearing Date: August 07, 2020    Dept: 58

Hearing Date: August 7, 2020

Case Name: Serrano v. Citrus Community College District, et al.

Case No.: ****5977

Motion: (1) Motion for Protective Order

(2) Motion to Strike Expert Designation

Moving Party: Plaintiff Crisanta Serrano

Responding Party: Defendant Citrus Community College District


Tentative Ruling: The Motions are denied.


This is an action arising from Plaintiff’s employment as a program assistant. On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, (2) FEHA harassment on the basis of pregnancy, (3) FEHA retaliation for complaining of discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of pregnancy, (4) FEHA discrimination on the basis of taking CFRA leave, (5) FEHA harassment on the basis of taking CFRA leave, (6) FEHA retaliation for taking CFRA leave, and (7) FEHA harassment on the basis of gender.

In May 2020, Defendant served a “Second Amended Demand For Exchange of Expert Witnesses And To Produce Expert Reports and Writings.” Plaintiff seeks a protective order quashing such demand. Plaintiff argues that the time to exchange expert information has long passed and that the continuance of discovery deadlines in this matter did not relate to expert exchanges.

Plaintiff also seeks to strike Defendant’s expert designation of Dr. Stefanie Peters as untimely and improper.

The Motion for Protective Order is denied. This is because the Court ordered that “[c]ontinuance of the trial date and the FSC date shall be accompanied by a continuance of all related dates and deadlines, including fact and expert discovery deadlines, otherwise determined by the Code of Civil Procedure, the Los Angeles Superior Court local rules, the California Rules of Court, and Department 58’s own rules, including the deadlines to file trial pleadings.” (February 6, 2020, Order.) While Plaintiff argues the foregoing does not relate to expert exchanges, the Court included no such limitation. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel drafted the parties’ accompanying stipulation which contained the same language, and any ambiguities should be construed against Plaintiff. (See Civ. Code ; 1654.)

Next, the Motion to Strike Expert Designation is denied as moot. Indeed, even if the designation of Dr. Peters was improper, Dr. Peters could simply be redesignated in connection with the ensuing exchange of expert information.



Case Number: ****5977    Hearing Date: July 08, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: July 8, 2020

Case Name: Serrano v. Citrus Community College District, et al.

Case No.: ****5977

Motion: Motion for Extensive Oral Voir Dire and Written Jury Questionnaire

Moving Party: Plaintiff Crisanta Serrano

Responding Party: Defendant Citrus Community College District


Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted in part as set forth below.


This is an action arising from Plaintiff’s employment as a program assistant. On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) FEHA discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, (2) FEHA harassment on the basis of pregnancy, (3) FEHA retaliation for complaining of discrimination and/or harassment on the basis of pregnancy, (4) FEHA discrimination on the basis of taking CFRA leave, (5) FEHA harassment on the basis of taking CFRA leave, (6) FEHA retaliation for taking CFRA leave, and (7) FEHA harassment on the basis of gender.

As of December 12, 2017, all causes of action other than the first, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action were dismissed pursuant to demurrer. All Defendants other than Citrus Community College District were also dismissed.

On February 28, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to the third cause of action. The first, fourth, and sixth causes of action remain.

Plaintiff now brings a Motion for Extensive Oral Voir Dire and the Use of a Written Jury Questionnaire.

Code Civ. Proc. ; 205(c)-(d) allows the use of written jury questionnaires for the purposes of assisting voir dire. (See also Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 3.25.) Plaintiff requests that the Court use her custom questionnaire or else the form questionnaire issued by the Judicial Council of California. Plaintiff asserts that a written questionnaire might be valuable in eliciting more truthful responses.

Although the Court does not see any strong need for a written questionnaire, given that the Court is not to arbitrarily deny a request for reasonable written questions (Code Civ. Proc. ; 222.5(f)), the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will allow the use of the Judicial Council’s written questionnaire. The questionnaire may be modified at the Final Status Conference for this matter as necessary.

Next, it is not clear what exactly Plaintiff is seeking with respect to an “extensive” oral voir dire, but to the extent she simply seeks to preclude arbitrary time limitations, this request is superfluous given that Code Civ. Proc. ; 222.5(b)(2) requires the same. In the end, while the Court will not allow endless/unlimited voir dire, it will, as per usual, discuss the limits of voir dire at the Final Status Conference for this matter (and/or at the Motion hearing) (Code Civ. Proc. ; 222.5(a)), and of course, monitor the reasonableness of oral questioning as it occurs. The Court notes that this is not an especially complex matter (3 causes of action against 1 Defendant) such that markedly extensive questioning should not be necessary.

In sum, the request for a written questionnaire is granted; the extensiveness of oral voir dire shall be further detailed at the Final Status Conference for this matter. The Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WALSH DENNIS J. ESQ.