This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/13/2020 at 01:19:39 (UTC).

DIONNE GRAHAM VS LOS ANGELES COUNT MTA

Case Summary

On 04/25/2017 DIONNE GRAHAM filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against LOS ANGELES COUNT MTA. 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:

    ****8722

  • Filing Date:

    04/25/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARC MARMARO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

GRAHAM DIONNE

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPOR-

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MIRROKNIAN REZA ESQ.

SHEGERIAN CARNEY R.

MIRROKNIAN REZA

LIM MARK IRWIN

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

FERGUSON NOHEMI GUTIERREZ ESQ.

DIPIETRO PAUL M.

FERGUSON NOHEMI GUTIERREZ

FERGUSON NOHEMI G.

 

Court Documents

Other - - OTHER - OTHER - DEFENDANT'S DECLARATIONS AND INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION VOLUMES 2 OF 2

12/10/2018: Other - - OTHER - OTHER - DEFENDANT'S DECLARATIONS AND INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION VOLUMES 2 OF 2

Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12/10/2018: Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Other - - OTHER - DEFENDANT'S DECLARATIONS AND INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION VOLUME 1 OF 2

12/10/2018: Other - - OTHER - DEFENDANT'S DECLARATIONS AND INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION VOLUME 1 OF 2

Exhibit List

7/15/2019: Exhibit List

Witness List

7/15/2019: Witness List

Objection - OBJECTION 1987 OBJECTIONS (D GRAHAM) -SERVED

8/2/2019: Objection - OBJECTION 1987 OBJECTIONS (D GRAHAM) -SERVED

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS AMENDED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO (1) THE SPECIFICS OF ANY BUS ACCIDENT PLAINTIFF WAS INVOLVED IN, OR (2) THE MEC

8/7/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS AMENDED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO (1) THE SPECIFICS OF ANY BUS ACCIDENT PLAINTIFF WAS INVOLVED IN, OR (2) THE MEC

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS AMENDED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE VIDEOTAPE OF BUS ACCIDENT AND ANY EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING THE VIDEOTAPE; DECLARATION OF

8/7/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS AMENDED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE VIDEOTAPE OF BUS ACCIDENT AND ANY EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING THE VIDEOTAPE; DECLARATION OF

Trial Brief

8/13/2019: Trial Brief

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

8/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

8/14/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF DIONNE GRAHAMS SECOND AMENDED NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE WITNESSES AT TRIAL (C.C.P. 1987(B)); PLAINTIFF DIONNE GRAHAMS SECOND AMENDED NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE

8/16/2019: Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF DIONNE GRAHAMS SECOND AMENDED NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE WITNESSES AT TRIAL (C.C.P. 1987(B)); PLAINTIFF DIONNE GRAHAMS SECOND AMENDED NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE BINDER

8/19/2019: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE BINDER

Objection - OBJECTION 1987 OBJ(GRAHAM)

8/27/2019: Objection - OBJECTION 1987 OBJ(GRAHAM)

Exhibit List - EXHIBIT LIST FIRST AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST

8/30/2019: Exhibit List - EXHIBIT LIST FIRST AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

9/3/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

9/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

9/4/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

125 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/16/2021
  • Hearing02/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 37 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2021
  • Hearing02/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 37 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Reza Mirroknian (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 37; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 37; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 37; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/29/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 37; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2019
  • DocketDeclaration ( OF DR. LAUREN PINTER-BROWN); Filed by Dionne Graham (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
167 More Docket Entries
  • 07/17/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (GOVT CODE 12940(A)); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Dionne Graham (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC658722    Hearing Date: May 14, 2021    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: May 14, 2021

CASE NUMBER: BC658722

CASE NAME: Dionne Graham v. Los Angeles County MTA

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Los Angeles County MTA

OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff, Dionne Graham

TRIAL DATE: October 26, 2021

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: Motion for Leave to File Cross Complaint

OPPOSITION: May 3, 2021

REPLY: May 7, 2021

TENTATIVE: LACMTA’s motion is granted. LACMTA is to file the proposed cross-complaint within 10 days. LACMTA is to give notice.

Background

This action arises in connection with Plaintiff, Dionne Graham’s (“Plaintiff”) employment with Defendant, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) as a bus operator. Plaintiff alleges that she was hired on February 2, 2002 and worked for over thirteen (13) years. Plaintiff was allegedly injured while performing her duties when another vehicle rear-ended her while she was stopped to pick up passengers. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff suffered physical disabilities as a result of these injuries and required accommodations for work restrictions. Plaintiff alleged informed LACMTA that she required these accommodations and instead of providing them, LACMTA placed her on a medical leave of absence and terminated her while she was on leave.

Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed April 25, 2017, alleges the following causes of action: (1) unlawful discrimination pursuant to the Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”), (2) failure to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA, (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation under the FEHA, (4) employment discrimination (retaliation) in violation of the FEHA, (5) failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination from occurring in violation of the FEHA.

On February 22, 2019, LACMTA’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, summary adjudication was granted as to Plaintiff’s first, fourth, and fifth causes of action. On April 29, 2020, the court continued trial for this matter from June 9, 2020 to February 16, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On February 9, 2021, the court held a Final Status Conference in this case. Pursuant to the request of LACMTA, trial was continued to October 26, 2021.

On April 8, 2021, LACMTA filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Plaintiff filed its opposition on May 3, 2021 and LACMTA filed its reply on May 7, 2021.

Discussion

  1. Legal Authority

     

    Generally, parties must file a cross-complaint against the party who filed the complaint before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (a).)  Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.  (Id. § 428.50, subd. (b).)  Parties may seek leave of the court to file an untimely cross-complaint, and leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.  (Id. § 428.50, subd. (c).)   

  2. Analysis

LACMTA seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiff alleging that Plaintiff has breached a 2015 worker’s compensation settlement agreement with LACMTA. (Motion, 1-2.) LACMTA contends that leave to file a cross-complaint should be granted because the cross-complaint is compulsory, as it arises out of the same set of facts as Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Motion, 3-4.) LACMTA also submits a declaration from Nohemi Gutierrez Ferguson (“Gutierrez Ferguson”) in support of its motion.

Gutierrez Ferguson attests that on November 23, 2015, Plaintiff settled her worker’s compensation claims with LACMTA, agreeing to never again work for LACMTA. (Gutierrez Ferguson Decl. ¶ 6.) Further, Plaintiff allegedly confirmed through this settlement that she had not suffered any other injuries while employed by Defendant. (Id.) According, Plaintiff executed a settlement agreement on December 3, 2015 to settle all worker’s compensation claims against LACMTA. (Gutierrez Ferguson Decl. ¶ 7.) Gutierrez Ferguson attests that the proposed Cross-Complaint will bring the 2015 settlement agreement to the court’s attention. (Gutierrez Ferguson Decl. ¶ 11.)

In opposition, Plaintiff first contends that the Cross-Complaint is not compulsory because the 2015 settlement agreement pertains to worker’s compensation claims, which are separate from those alleged in this action. (Opposition, 2.) Additionally, Plaintiff contends that the interests of justice weigh in favor of denying the motion, as LACMTA seeks to file the Cross-Complaint five months before trial and a trial continuance may be required to “fully litigate” the cross-complaint. (Opposition, 3.) Finally, Plaintiff contends that the motion should be denied because LACMTA did not demonstrate how failure its failure to file the cross-complaint at the time of answer was the result of inadvertence, mistake or neglect. (Opposition, 3-4.)

In reply, LACMTA contends that there is no requirement to demonstrate failure to file a cross-complaint due to oversight, mistake, or neglect prior to the court granting a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. (Reply, 2-3.) In addition, LACMTA contends that the interest of justice weigh in favor of permitting the cross-complaint to be filed because there exists ample time to conduct discovery and Plaintiff is aware of the issues LACMTA seeks to present in the cross-complaint. (Reply, 3-4.)

The court agrees with LACMTA that the proposed cross-complaint arises out of the same facts as Plaintiff’s Complaint. The proposed cross-complaint alleges that Plaintiff impermissibly seeks recovery of medical expenses and emotional distress damages in connection with her employment at LACMTA, and that recovery of such damages is barred by the 2015 settlement agreement. Additionally, trial is approximately five and a half months away, which is sufficient time to conduct discovery on the issues in the proposed cross-complaint. Thus, permitting LACMTA to assert these claims in a cross-complaint in the same action would be in the interest of justice.

Conclusion

LACMTA’s motion is granted. LACMTA is to file the proposed cross-complaint within 10 days. LACMTA is to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer DIPIETRO PAUL MICHAEL

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FERGUSON NOHEMI GUTIERREZ ESQ.