Search

Attributes

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

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MALCOLM MACKEY

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SERRANO CRISANTA

Defendants and Respondents

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

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WALSH DENNIS J. ESQ.

WALSH DENNIS JOHN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

3/14/2018: Minute Order

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

AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES BY 90- DAYS; DECLARATION GLORIA TUMANYAN; EXHIBIT

6/7/2018: PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES BY 90- DAYS; DECLARATION GLORIA TUMANYAN; EXHIBIT

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

6/28/2018: AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

Minute Order

11/7/2018: Minute Order

Opposition

2/14/2019: Opposition

Notice

2/14/2019: Notice

Notice

2/14/2019: Notice

Minute Order

2/28/2019: Minute Order

Response

3/1/2019: Response

PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PREGNANCY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; ETC

6/22/2017: PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PREGNANCY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; ETC

Unknown

6/29/2017: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

7/31/2017: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

70 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Notice (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 MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Response (TO PLAINTIFF?S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT); Filed by Citrus Community College District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • at 08:32 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Further Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Further Status Confer...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
126 More Docket Entries
  • 06/29/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-06-29 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Crisanta Serrano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO THE HONORABLE MALCOM H. MACKEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Crisanta Serrano (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • PLAINTIFF CRISANTA SERRANO'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PREGNANCY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665977    Hearing Date: August 07, 2020    Dept: 58

Hearing Date: August 7, 2020

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

Case No.: BC665977

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: BC665977    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.: BC665977

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.