This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/08/2020 at 04:19:08 (UTC).

DIANA MCCALLISTE ARIAS VS MAY LING YU

Case Summary

On 02/08/2018 DIANA MCCALLISTE ARIAS filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against MAY LING YU. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8805

  • Filing Date:

    02/08/2018

  • 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 Judge

NANCY L. NEWMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ARIAS DIANA MCCALLISTER

Defendants

YU MAY LING

MLT XII LLC DOE 5

MLT LLC DOE 2

MLT IX LLC DOE 3

YU DOE 1 THOMAS

4TH ST. CONDO LLC DOE 7

7230 FRANKLIN PLAZA LLC DOE 8

MLT X DOE 4

MLT 18 LLC DOE 6

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

WATSON JOESPH C.

Defendant Attorneys

GREBOW ARTHUR

WIMMER DAVID

CHU ANTHONY K.

MOHAJERIAN AL

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

9/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS)

3/13/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/28/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF AL MOHAJERIAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY, TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE SUM OF $6,900

2/28/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF AL MOHAJERIAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY, TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE SUM OF $6,900

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/27/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Ruling

2/28/2020: Notice of Ruling

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/28/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Ruling

2/11/2020: Notice of Ruling

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/10/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANN ANOOSHIAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION

10/23/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANN ANOOSHIAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION

Substitution of Attorney

10/11/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

10/11/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

10/11/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Ex Parte Application - DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES AND ALL ASSOCIATED DEADLINES

10/15/2019: Ex Parte Application - DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES AND ALL ASSOCIATED DEADLINES

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

7/1/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

6/11/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

6/11/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Reply - REPLY RE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

5/28/2019: Reply - REPLY RE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

111 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/16/2021
  • Hearing03/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2020
  • DocketRETURNED MAIL; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 03/23/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
142 More Docket Entries
  • 04/10/2018
  • DocketStipulation (RE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT FILED BY GREBOW & RUBIN ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • DocketOrder (FILED BY GREBOW & RUBIN LLP ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • DocketOrder; Filed by MAY LING YU (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by DIANA MCCALLISTER ARIAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by DIANA MCCALLISTER ARIAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128805    Hearing Date: March 13, 2020    Dept: P

 TENTATIVE RULING

Diana McCallister Arias v. May Ling Yu, Case No. SC128805

Motion for Evidentiary, Terminating, and Monetary Sanctions

Hearing Date March 13, 2020

Plaintiff’s deposition was initially scheduled for February 7, 2019. Plaintiff initially noticed defendant Thomas Yu’s deposition for September 24, 2019. Defendants objected to this date, and the parties stipulated to depose Thomas Yu on October 8, 2019. The parties then agreed to conduct plaintiff’s deposition on October 24, 2019 and rescheduled Thomas Yu’s deposition for October 21, 2019.

Plaintiff objected and did not appear. After hearing a motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition, the court ordered plaintiff be deposed before January 23, 2020. The court also ordered Thomas Yu be deposed on or before January 22, 2020. The deposition occurred on December 11, 2019, and defendants’ counsel objected to several questions. Defendants moved ex parte for appointment of a discovery referee. The court ordered plaintiff to file a noticed motion for appointment of a referee after plaintiff’s counsel did not appear at the ex parte hearing. On February 11, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion for appointment of a referee.

Defendants propounded a notice of deposition for plaintiff’s deposition on February 19 or 21, 2020. Plaintiff objected and has failed to appear. Defendants move for evidentiary sanctions preventing plaintiff from testifying at trial, as well as terminating and monetary sanctions.

Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.030, a court may impose monetary, evidentiary, or terminating against a party engaged in misuse of the discovery process. Terminating sanctions are justified if a plaintiff ignores a trial court’s order to submit to deposition. Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690.

Plaintiff does not dispute that she was ordered to appear for her deposition before January 23, 2020 and failed to do so. Plaintiff refused to appear for later-scheduled depositions on the 19th and 21st. Plaintiff justified these failures with evidence that the discovery referee was unavailable for those dates. Plaintiff’s exhibit 83. Plaintiff provided evidence she stipulated to holding the deposition on March 4, after the discovery cutoff, but defendants refused. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 78 Since plaintiff has set forth dates when both she and the discovery referee are available for deposition, the court will not impose terminating or evidentiary sanctions. On its own motion, the court will extend the discovery cutoff date and require plaintiff to be deposed on March 17 or 19th, dates during which the referee is available. Plaintiff’s exhibit 71.

Monetary sanctions are justified for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order that she be deposed prior to January 23. Defendant’s request for thirteen hours’ of attorney’s fees (six hours of work by Ann Anooshian billed at $450.00/hr and seven hours for Al Mohajerian billed at $600.00/hr) totaling $6,900.00 is excessive. The court awards fees equal to two hours of work for Anooshian and three hours of work for Mohajerian, a total of $,2700.00, payable within 30 days. GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Case Number: SC128805    Hearing Date: February 11, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Diana McCallister Arias v. May Ling Yu et al., Case No. SC128805

Hearing Date: February 11, 2020

Defendants’ Motion for Appointment of Discovery Referee

During the deposition of defendant Thomas Yu, several discovery disputes arose. Defendants claim the parties stipulated to appointment of a discovery referee. Later, defendants argue, the parties agreed via email Hon. Suzanne Bruguera would serve as referee. Defendants claim plaintiff refuses to sign the stipulation and moves for an order appointing a discovery referee.

Upon written motion of any party, a court may appoint a referee to “hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §639.

The parties disagree as to whether they consented to appointment of a referee. The deposition transcript is clear; there is agreement to the appointment of a referee. See Declaration of Al Mohajerian at pages 34-36. The motion is GRANTED. The court will appoint the Honorable Suzanne G. Bruguera as referee for the limited purpose of resolving discovery disputes related to the depositions of defendant and plaintiff.

Plaintiff also moves to strike defendants’ reply and evidentiary objections because they were not electronically served. Los Angeles County Local rule 3.49(A) requires represented parties in civil actions to file documents electronically. California Rules of Court Rule 2.251(3) mandates electronic service of all documents that must be filed electronically. Since defendants apparently failed to electronically serve the reply and accompanying objections, they did not comply with Rule 2.251(3). Plaintiff’s motion to strike is GRANTED. The court’s tentative ruling on the underlying motion remains the same, however.