Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/07/2020 at 11:10:36 (UTC).

DIANA GAVILANES VS BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Case Summary

On 01/04/2018 DIANA GAVILANES filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL 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 RICHARD FRUIN, ROBERT L. HESS, PATRICIA D. NIETO, ERNEST HIROSHIGE, RICHARD L. FRUIN, ERNEST M. HIROSHIGE, ANTHONY MOHR and SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8975

  • Filing Date:

    01/04/2018

  • 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

RICHARD FRUIN

ROBERT L. HESS

PATRICIA D. NIETO

ERNEST HIROSHIGE

RICHARD L. FRUIN

ERNEST M. HIROSHIGE

ANTHONY MOHR

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GAVILANES DIANA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 100

BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GEORGE VICTOR L. ESQ.

GEORGE VICTOR LIGHT ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

ROCHE ROBERT J. ESQ.

ROCHE ROBERT J.

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OFFEHA, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, - ET SEQ.: A. PHYSICAL DISABILITY B. GENDER C. NATIONAL ORIGIN ;ETC

1/4/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OFFEHA, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, - ET SEQ.: A. PHYSICAL DISABILITY B. GENDER C. NATIONAL ORIGIN ;ETC

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling on Objection to Declaration of DG

1/17/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling on Objection to Declaration of DG

Reply - REPLY SUR-REPLY TO REPLY TO OPPOSITION

1/16/2020: Reply - REPLY SUR-REPLY TO REPLY TO OPPOSITION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION...)

1/17/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION...)

Minute Order - (AMENDED)

1/16/2020: Minute Order - (AMENDED)

Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF BK

1/9/2020: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF BK

Notice - NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (AMENDED NOTICE)

1/3/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (AMENDED NOTICE)

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

12/23/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Notice - NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

12/12/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/9/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JILL MARUCUT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/9/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JILL MARUCUT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION

9/10/2019: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

9/5/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO

8/5/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES I. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OFFEHA, AL1FORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE ? 12900, EL SEQ.: A. PHYSICAL DISABILITY; B. GENDER; C. NATIONAL ORIGIN; AND 2. RETALIATION IN VIOL

5/31/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES I. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OFFEHA, AL1FORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE ? 12900, EL SEQ.: A. PHYSICAL DISABILITY; B. GENDER; C. NATIONAL ORIGIN; AND 2. RETALIATION IN VIOL

SUMMMONS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/31/2018: SUMMMONS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order -

1/11/2018: Minute Order -

167 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/22/2021
  • Hearing01/22/2021 at 09:15 AM in Department 54 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Purpose of Deposing Former BUSD Employee, Bryan Kennebrew

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2020
  • Hearing12/18/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 54 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Wayne C. Smith in Support of Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Purpose of Deposing Former BUSD Employee, Bryan Kennebrew); Filed by Diana Gavilanes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketMotion re: (Motion to Reopen Discovery for the Purpose of Deposing Former BUSD Employee, Bryan Kennebrew); Filed by Diana Gavilanes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 96; Hearing on Motion - Other (TO STAY DEPOSITION OF BRYAN KENNEBREW AND QUASH THE DEPOSITION NOTICE AND SUBPOENA (filed wihtout reservation)) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 54, Anthony Mohr, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (TO STAY DEPOSITION OF BRYAN KENNEBREW AND QUASH THE DEPOSITION NOTICE AND SUBPOENA (filed wihtout reservation)) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other TO STAY DEPOSITION OF BRYAN KENNEBR...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketReply (TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO STAY DEPOSITION OF BRYAN KENNEBREW AND QUASH THE DEPOSITION NOTICE AND SUBPOENA); Filed by Bellflower Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (OF ROBERT J. ROCHE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION TO STAY DEPOSITION OF BRIAN KENNEBREW AND QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICE AND SUBPOENA); Filed by Bellflower Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketObjection (TO DECLARATION OF WAYNE SMITH); Filed by Bellflower Unified School District (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
240 More Docket Entries
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Diana Gavilanes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 15; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Case is reassigned) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-01-11 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Diana Gavilanes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF WAYNE C. SMITH RE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE (CCP 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Diana Gavilanes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OFFEHA, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, - ET SEQ.: A. PHYSICAL DISABILITY B. GENDER C. NATIONAL ORIGIN ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

Victor L. George, State Bar No. 110504 Wayne C. Smith, State Bar No. 122535

LAW OFFICES OF VICTOR L. GEORGE

20355 Hawthorne Blvd, First Floor

Torrance, California 90503 '

Telephone: (310) 698-0990

Facsimile: (310) 698-0995

E-mail: vgeorge@vgeorgelaw.com wsmith@vgeorgelaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

DIANA GAVILANES

anem R.o et gxguuve Officen/Clerk y _C_l % S_ “Bnlden Deputy

Superior Court of California

ountv of | ne Annalas ife

JAN 04 2018 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DIANA GAVILANES, an individual,

Plaintiff,

BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, a.business, form unknown; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

' Defendants.

" BC68897 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

‘ q A. PHYSICAL DISABILITY B. GENDER C. NATIONAL ORIGIN . VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; . RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

: DiSCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA, CALIFORNIA - GOVERNMENT CODE §§12900,

. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE.

Plaintiff DIANA GAVILANES, hereby complains and alleges against Defendants,

and each of them, as follows: /1

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688975    Hearing Date: April 14, 2021    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Diana Gavilanes,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

BC688975

vs.

Tentative Ruling

Bellflower Unified School District,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: April 14, 2021

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Reopen Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Diana Gavilanes

Responding Party: Defendant Bellflower Unified School District

At the March 18, 2021 hearing on this motion, Defendant stated it would waive its objection under CCP § 2025.620 to the use at trial of the first deposition of Bryan Kennebrew, but Defendant would preserve its evidentiary objections to individual questions and answers in that deposition. The Court continued the motion to permit the parties to memorialize this in writing. The Court has not seen such a writing. The Court re-posts its March 18, 2021 tentative ruling.

* * *

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Diana Gavilanes brought this action against her employer Defendant Bellflower Unified School District. The operative complaint alleges she worked as a security guard for the District for 23 years. Plaintiff went on medical leave after she injured her right shoulder and neck while breaking up a fight between two students on March 17, 2015. On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff’s personal physician released her back to work with no restrictions. However, the District would not allow her to return to work until she was released to return to work following a Qualified Medical Exam through her workers’ compensation case. On July 13, 2016, Plaintiff underwent a QME and was released to return to work with no restrictions. Yet the District still refused to allow her to return to work, claiming her job description required her to lift 50 pounds over her shoulders. There had never been such a requirement in Plaintiff’s job description. Ultimately, the District fired Plaintiff on September 5, 2017 claiming she did not provide a medical release. Plaintiff alleges she was fired because of her perceived physical condition.

ANALYSIS

CCP § 2024.050 provides: 

(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.

Trial initially was set for April 1, 2020, with a discovery cut-off date of March 2, 2020. On February 27, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the trial and related dates. This stipulation specifically stated that the discovery cut-off would not be continued.

Plaintiff nonetheless served a subpoena on third-party witness Bryan Kennebrew on May 12, 2020 to appear for deposition on May 27, 2020. On May 26, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to quash or stay the deposition of Kennebrew on the ground that discovery was closed. The motion was not heard before the scheduled deposition date (presumably because the Court was largely closed at that time due to the COVID-19 pandemic) and the deposition went forward on May 27. On September 11, 2020, the Court denied the motion as moot because Kennebrew’s deposition had proceeded.

Plaintiff now moves to reopen discovery to depose Kennebrew again. Plaintiff asserts that Kennebrew may not be available to testify at trial because trial may not go forward until 2022 and Kennebrew now lives in Idaho. Plaintiff contends that Kennebrew will testify that he was permitted to return to work at BUSD despite an injury worse than Plaintiff’s injury and that BUSD reached out to him to apply for a campus security position, despite Plaintiff’s placement on the preferential re-hire list. In opposition, Defendant asserts that discovery is closed and that this motion is Plaintiff’s attempt to legitimize her previously improper deposition of Kennebrew. Defendant believes that Plaintiff was going to call Kennebrew as a surprise witness, but the pandemic interfered with the trial date and now Plaintiff seeks a deposition because Kennebrew moved to Idaho.

Plaintiff improperly took the deposition of Kennebrew after the cut-off, despite Defendant’s objections, and Plaintiff has been dilatory in seeking to reopen discovery. The Court would prefer to avoid taking up Kennebrew’s time with another deposition. But Defendant has failed to establish prejudice. The trial date has been vacated and Kennebrew subsequently relocated. Plaintiff contends the testimony is crucial to her case. These factors weigh in favor of reopening discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining Kennebrew’s testimony.

Kennebrew’s first deposition is likely inadmissible under Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.620. Absent an agreement to waive objection under § 2025.620 and use the first deposition at trial, the Court will reopen discovery to permit a second deposition.

Case Number: BC688975    Hearing Date: March 18, 2021    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Diana Gavilanes,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

BC688975

vs.

Tentative Ruling

Bellflower Unified School District,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: March 18, 2021

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Reopen Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Diana Gavilanes

Responding Party: Defendant Bellflower Unified School District

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Diana Gavilanes brought this action against her employer Defendant Bellflower Unified School District. The operative complaint alleges she worked as a security guard for the District for 23 years. Plaintiff went on medical leave after she injured her right shoulder and neck while breaking up a fight between two students on March 17, 2015. On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff’s personal physician released her back to work with no restrictions. However, the District would not allow her to return to work until she was released to return to work following a Qualified Medical Exam through her workers’ compensation case. On July 13, 2016, Plaintiff underwent a QME and was released to return to work with no restrictions. Yet the District still refused to allow her to return to work, claiming her job description required her to lift 50 pounds over her shoulders. There had never been such a requirement in Plaintiff’s job description. Ultimately, the District fired Plaintiff on September 5, 2017 claiming she did not provide a medical release. Plaintiff alleges she was fired because of her perceived physical condition.

ANALYSIS

CCP § 2024.050 provides: 

(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.

Trial initially was set for April 1, 2020, with a discovery cut-off date of March 2, 2020. On February 27, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the trial and related dates. This stipulation specifically stated that the discovery cut-off would not be continued.

Plaintiff nonetheless served a subpoena on third-party witness Bryan Kennebrew on May 12, 2020 to appear for deposition on May 27, 2020. On May 26, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to quash or stay the deposition of Kennebrew on the ground that discovery was closed. The motion was not heard before the scheduled deposition date (presumably because the Court was largely closed at that time due to the COVID-19 pandemic) and the deposition went forward on May 27. On September 11, 2020, the Court denied the motion as moot because Kennebrew’s deposition had proceeded.

Plaintiff now moves to reopen discovery to depose Kennebrew again. Plaintiff asserts that Kennebrew may not be available to testify at trial because trial may not go forward until 2022 and Kennebrew now lives in Idaho. Plaintiff contends that Kennebrew will testify that he was permitted to return to work at BUSD despite an injury worse than Plaintiff’s injury and that BUSD reached out to him to apply for a campus security position, despite Plaintiff’s placement on the preferential re-hire list. In opposition, Defendant asserts that discovery is closed and that this motion is Plaintiff’s attempt to legitimize her previously improper deposition of Kennebrew. Defendant believes that Plaintiff was going to call Kennebrew as a surprise witness, but the pandemic interfered with the trial date and now Plaintiff seeks a deposition because Kennebrew moved to Idaho.

Plaintiff improperly took the deposition of Kennebrew after the cut-off, despite Defendant’s objections, and Plaintiff has been dilatory in seeking to reopen discovery. The Court would prefer to avoid taking up Kennebrew’s time with another deposition. But Defendant has failed to establish prejudice. The trial date has been vacated and Kennebrew subsequently relocated. Plaintiff contends the testimony is crucial to her case. These factors weigh in favor of reopening discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining Kennebrew’s testimony.

Kennebrew’s first deposition is likely inadmissible under Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.620. Absent an agreement to waive objection under § 2025.620 and use the first deposition at trial, the Court will reopen discovery to permit a second deposition.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROCHE ROBERT J. ESQ.