This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:40:52 (UTC).

JUAN PABLO BENITEZ VS CLASSIC COSMETICS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/05/2018 JUAN PABLO BENITEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CLASSIC COSMETICS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN P. PFAHLER and JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6333

  • Filing Date:

    03/05/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN P. PFAHLER

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BENITEZ JUAN PABLO

Claimant

ULTIMAT STAFFING SERVICES

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

CLASSIC COSMETICS INC

VETRACO GROUP SRL

DOES 1 TO 50

ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES INC.

PACKDEVCO. INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

JAVID RAPHAEL D. ESQ.

JAVID RAPHAEL DARA ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LANE WENDY E. ESQ.

FRIEDENTHAL DANIEL RAY

FRIEDENTHAL DANIEL RAY ESQ.

JENNINGS MARC

Cross Defendant Attorney

OLSON SONALI

Other Attorneys

VASQUEZ DAVIL R. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice

7/19/2019: Notice

Reply

7/19/2019: Reply

Minute Order

7/26/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

7/30/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice

8/2/2019: Notice

Cross-Complaint

8/13/2019: Cross-Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/5/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

3/5/2018: Complaint

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

12/21/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/1/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Notice of Deposit - Jury

2/26/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Cross-Complaint

3/7/2019: Cross-Complaint

Answer

3/7/2019: Answer

Summons

3/7/2019: Summons

Answer

4/2/2019: Answer

Notice

4/5/2019: Notice

Notice

4/5/2019: Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

4/29/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

32 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/01/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department F49 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department F49 at 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2019
  • DocketNOTICE OF RULING RE: CROSS- DEFENDANT ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES, L.P.'S DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT PACKDEVCO, INC.'S CROSS-COMPLAINT; Filed by Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Juan Pablo Benitez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F49, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (to Cross Complaint of PackDevCo) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F49, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Hearing on Demurrer - without Mot...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F49, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • DocketNotice (of Continuance of Hearing); Filed by Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • DocketReply (in Support of Cross-Defendant's Demurrer to Cross-Complaint of PackDevCo); Filed by Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
33 More Docket Entries
  • 06/06/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF LIEN CLAIM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2018
  • DocketNotice of Lien; Filed by Ultimat Staffing Services (Claimant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Classic Cosmetics, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANTS CLASSIC COSMETICS INC.S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Juan Pablo Benitez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Juan Pablo Benitez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Juan Pablo Benitez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 4558 ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696333    Hearing Date: March 26, 2021    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Calendar # 5

Date: 3-26-21

Case #BC696333

Trial Date: 4-19-21 c/f 6-1-2020

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Juan Benitez, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Juan Benitez was an employee on the premises of Defendant Classic Cosmetics, Inc. Classic Cosmetics operates a manufacturing facility in Chatsworth. On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff was cleaning a powder press machine within the premises, when the machine pressed down on part of his hand. Plaintiff suffered injuries, which led to a right thumb amputation and damage to other fingers on the right hand.

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint for violation of Labor Code section 4558, strict product liability and negligence product liability. Classic Cosmetics is only named in the violation of Labor Code section 4558 cause of action. The press manufacturer(s)/distributor(s) is only named in the product liability causes of action.

On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff substituted in PackDevCo., Inc. for Doe 1. On March 7, 2019, PackDevCo., Inc. filed a cross-complaint for negligence, implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, apportionment and declaratory relief against Classic Cosmetics, Inc. and Roth Staffing Companies, Inc.

On June 19, 2019, Classic Cosmetics, Inc. filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief and comparative negligence.

On July 26, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer of Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. to the PackDevCo., Inc. cross-complaint. On August 13, 2019, PackDevCo., Inc. filed it’s first amended cross-complaint for negligence, implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, apportionment and declaratory relief against Classic Cosmetics, Inc. and Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. On October 25, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer of Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. without leave to amend to the negligence and apportionment causes in the PackDevCo., Inc. first amended cross-complaint. PackDevCo. subsequently dismissed Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. from the cross-complaint on November 25, 2019.

PackDevCo. filed its first amended answer to the complaint on November 27, 2019. On January 24, 2020, the court granted the motion for summary judgment Defendant/Cross-Defendant Classic Cosmetics, Inc. to the first amended cross-complaint of Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc.

On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Classic Cosmetics, Inc. from the complaint with prejudice.

On April 22, 2020, the remaining parties stipulated allowing PackDevCo., Inc. to file a first amended answer to the complaint.

On October 13, 2020, the court granted the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Plaintiff Juan Pablo Benitez. The record shows no substitution of new counsel.

RULING: Granted.

The Request for Judicial Notice of the December 9, 2020 Order Deeming Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. The court cannot judicially notice the content of the complaint for purposes of establishing the truth of the matters asserted. (Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.) “Nevertheless, “[t]he court will take judicial notice of records such as admissions … when considering a demurrer, only where they contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court.” (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604–605.)

Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc. moves for judgment on the pleadings based on the December 9, 2020 order deeming admissions admitted. PackDevCo., Inc. contends that the order deeming the admissions admitted renders the claims against it invalid. PackDevCo., Inc. also submits argument under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings serves the function of a demurrer, challenging only defects on the face of the complaint… [¶] The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the complaint or from a matter of which the court may take judicial notice.” (Richardson-Tunnell v. School Ins. Program for Employees (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1061.) In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts consider whether the factual allegations, assumed true, are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452-453.)

“In general, collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating issues litigated and decided in a prior proceeding. (Citations.) ‘Traditionally, we have applied the doctrine only if several threshold requirements are fulfilled. First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding. Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding. Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding. Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits. Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. (Citation.)’”

(Gikas v. Zolin (1993) 6 Cal.4th 841, 848–849.)

Collateral estoppel Smith v. Exxon Mobil Oil Corp.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel cannot apply in the subject action since the order deeming admissions admitted occurred in the same action. There is no prior action or judgment based on this order. The doctrine is therefore inapplicable.

As for the request to consider the content of the operative complaint relative to the order deeming the admissions admitted to determine the validity of the allegations against PackDevCo., Inc,, such consideration is allowed. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co., supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at pp. 604–605.) “The hearing on demurrer may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of affidavits, declarations, depositions, and other such material which was filed on behalf of the adverse party and which purports to contradict the allegations and contentions of the plaintiff.” (Id. at p. 605.)

Given both the motion to deem admissions admitted was unopposed, and the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings is also uncontested, the court allows consideration of the content of the order relative to the operative complaint. (Ibid.) The subject motion in no way constitutes a contested evidentiary hearing. The court finds the order deeming the admissions admitted, which declared no basis of liability against PackDevCo., Inc., constitutes a valid basis for finding no valid claims against PackDevCo., Inc. (Id. at pp. 605-606.)

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore granted.

Moving counsel to provide notice.

Case Number: BC696333    Hearing Date: December 09, 2020    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Calendar # 6

Date: 12-9-20

Case #BC696333

Trial Date: 4-19-21 c/f 6-1-2020

DISCOVERY

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Juan Benitez, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) and Request for Production of Documents (set one)

Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Juan Benitez was an employee on the premises of Defendant Classic Cosmetics, Inc. Classic Cosmetics operates a manufacturing facility in Chatsworth. On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff was cleaning a powder press machine within the premises, when the machine pressed down on part of his hand. Plaintiff suffered injuries, which led to a right thumb amputation and damage to other fingers on the right hand.

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint for violation of Labor Code section 4558, strict product liability and negligence product liability. Classic Cosmetics is only named in the violation of Labor Code section 4558 cause of action. The press manufacturer(s)/distributor(s) is only named in the product liability causes of action.

On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff substituted in PackDevCo., Inc. for Doe 1. On March 7, 2019, PackDevCo., Inc. filed a cross-complaint for negligence, implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, apportionment and declaratory relief against Classic Cosmetics, Inc. and Roth Staffing Companies, Inc.

On June 19, 2019, Classic Cosmetics, Inc. filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief and comparative negligence.

On July 26, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer of Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. to the PackDevCo., Inc. cross-complaint. On August 13, 2019, PackDevCo., Inc. filed it’s first amended cross-complaint for negligence, implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, apportionment and declaratory relief against Classic Cosmetics, Inc. and Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. On October 25, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer of Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. without leave to amend to the negligence and apportionment causes in the PackDevCo., Inc. first amended cross-complaint. PackDevCo. subsequently dismissed Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. from the cross-complaint on November 25, 2019.

PackDevCo. filed its first amended answer to the complaint on November 27, 2019. On January 24, 2020, the court granted the motion for summary judgment Defendant/Cross-Defendant Classic Cosmetics, Inc. to the first amended cross-complaint of Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc.

On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Classic Cosmetics, Inc. from the complaint with prejudice.

On April 22, 2020, the remaining parties stipulated allowing PackDevCo., Inc. to file a first amended answer to the complaint.

On October 13, 2020, the court granted the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Plaintiff Juan Pablo Benitez. The record shows no substitution of new counsel.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc. moves to compel Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff

Benitez to provide responses to Requests for Production of Documents and Special Interrogatories, and to deem Requests for Admissions Admitted as to Shaw. The subject items were served on March 30, 2020, and remain outstanding.

Plaintiff Benitez is ordered to serve verified responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) and Request for Production of Documents (set one) without objections, within ten days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subds. (a-b), 2031.300, subd. (a-b).)

Plaintiff’s motion to deem admissions admitted is also granted. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a-b).)

Sanctions in the amount of $250 against Benitz and payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Moving counsel to provide notice.

Case Number: BC696333    Hearing Date: November 23, 2020    Dept: F49

 Dept. F-49

Calendar #

Date: 11-23-20

Case #BC696333

Trial Date: 4-19-21 c/f 6-1-2020

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Juan Benitez, pro per

Motion to Compel an Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff Juan Pablo Benitez.

Plaintiff Juan Benitez was an employee on the premises of Defendant Classic Cosmetics, Inc. Classic Cosmetics operates a manufacturing facility in Chatsworth. On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff was cleaning a powder press machine within the premises, when the machine pressed down on part of his hand. Plaintiff suffered injuries, which led to a right thumb amputation and damage to other fingers on the right hand.

 

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint for violation of Labor Code section 4558, strict product liability and negligence product liability. Classic Cosmetics is only named in the violation of Labor Code section 4558 cause of action. The press manufacturer(s)/distributor(s) is only named in the product liability causes of action.

On July 26, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer of Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. to the PackDevCo., Inc. cross-complaint. On August 13, 2019, PackDevCo., Inc. filed it’s first amended cross-complaint for negligence, implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, apportionment and declaratory relief against Classic Cosmetics, Inc. and Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. On October 25, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer of Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. without leave to amend to the negligence and apportionment causes in the PackDevCo., Inc. first amended cross-complaint. PackDevCo. subsequently dismissed Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. from the cross-complaint on November 25, 2019.

 

PackDevCo. filed its first amended answer to the complaint on November 27, 2019. On January 24, 2020, the court granted the motion for summary judgment Defendant/Cross-Defendant Classic Cosmetics, Inc. to the first amended cross-complaint of Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc.

On April 22, 2020, the remaining parties stipulated allowing PackDevCo., Inc. to file a first amended answer to the complaint.

 

RULING: Granted.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc. moves to compel an independent orthopedic medical examination of the injured hand. On April 27, 2020, moving party noticed an independent medical exam for June 17, 2020. Moving party represents that the parties mutually agreed to the subject date prior to the service of the notice. [Steinberger Decl.] Objections were untimely served one day before the scheduled examination, and Plaintiff failed to appear for the examination.[1]

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.240, subd. (b).) “If a defendant who has demanded a physical examination under this article, on receipt of the plaintiff’s response to that demand, deems that … any refusal to submit to the physical examination is unwarranted, that defendant may move for an order compelling compliance with the demand. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.250, subd. (a).) Moving party demonstrates a sufficient meet and confer effort. [Steinberger Decl.]

The court therefore orders Plaintiff Benitez to agree to a mutually convenient date for an examination with a designated orthopedist. If Plaintiff fails to agree to a date within 10 days of service of the subject order, Defendant may unilaterally schedule the examination. Failure to appear for the second examination may render Plaintiff liable to further monetary and/or issue, evidentiary or terminating sanctions.

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.240, subd. (d), 2032.250, subd. (b).)

The court acknowledges the right to collect sanctions under the circumstances, which include the $800 cancellation fee with the orthopedist. Nevertheless, the court also acknowledges the order granting Plaintiff’s counsel leave to withdraw based on a potential abandonment of the action by Plaintiff from prior to the scheduled medical examination date. The court therefore awards sanctions of $1,000 against Plaintiff Benitez only payable within 30 days.

 Discovery motions set for December 9 and 10, 2020, respectively.

Moving counsel to provide notice.

[1]Former Plaintiff’s counsel represented they were unable to confirm whether Plaintiff will appear for the examination.

Case Number: BC696333    Hearing Date: October 13, 2020    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Calendar # 5

Date: 10-13-20 a/f 12-4-20

Case #BC696333

Trial Date: 4-19-21 c/f 6-1-2020

ATTORNEY WITHDRAWAL

MOVING ATTORNEY: Mark Millard

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Plaintiff Juan Pablo Benitez

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Juan Benitez was an employee on the premises of Defendant Classic Cosmetics, Inc. Classic Cosmetics operates a manufacturing facility in Chatsworth. On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff was cleaning a powder press machine within the premises, when the machine pressed down on part of his hand. Plaintiff suffered injuries, which led to a right thumb amputation and damage to other fingers on the right hand.

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint for violation of Labor Code section 4558, strict product liability and negligence product liability. Classic Cosmetics is only named in the violation of Labor Code section 4558 cause of action. The press manufacturer(s)/distributor(s) is only named in the product liability causes of action.

On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff substituted in PackDevCo., Inc. for Doe 1. On March 7, 2019, PackDevCo., Inc. filed a cross-complaint for negligence, implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, apportionment and declaratory relief against Classic Cosmetics, Inc. and Roth Staffing Companies, Inc.

On June 19, 2019, Classic Cosmetics, Inc. filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief and comparative negligence.

On July 26, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer of Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. to the PackDevCo., Inc. cross-complaint. On August 13, 2019, PackDevCo., Inc. filed it’s first amended cross-complaint for negligence, implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, apportionment and declaratory relief against Classic Cosmetics, Inc. and Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. On October 25, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer of Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. without leave to amend to the negligence and apportionment causes in the PackDevCo., Inc. first amended cross-complaint. PackDevCo. subsequently dismissed Roth Staffing Companies, Inc. from the cross-complaint on November 25, 2019.

PackDevCo. filed its first amended answer to the complaint on November 27, 2019. On January 24, 2020, the court granted the motion for summary judgment Defendant/Cross-Defendant Classic Cosmetics, Inc. to the first amended cross-complaint of Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc.

On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Classic Cosmetics, Inc. from the complaint with prejudice.

On April 22, 2020, the remaining parties stipulated allowing PackDevCo., Inc. to file a first amended answer to the complaint.

RULING: Granted.

Counsel for Plaintiff Juan Benitez moves to withdraw as counsel of record, due to a break down of the attorney client relationship. Plaintiff is unwilling to follow the advice of counsel, communicate, or participate in discovery.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc. in “amended limited opposition”[1] challenges the declaration in support of the motion (form MC-052), due to the lack of any identified last known phone number and two different addresses. According to Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc., in reply to the prior “limited opposition” counsel represented that it lacked a valid phone number for Plaintiff. Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc. ostensibly raises this issue, as a basis for Plaintiff not cooperating with discovery.

The court finds the application complies with all statutory requirements. The concerns of Defendant/Cross-Complainant, PackDevCo., Inc. regarding contact between moving counsel and the client in no way support a basis for denial of the application to withdraw as counsel of record.

The motion is granted. Withdrawal becomes effective upon service of a completed signed order.

Discovery motions set for November 23, 2020, and December 9 and 10, 2020.

Moving counsel to provide notice.


[1]The Amended Limited Opposition was filed after the reply to initial “limited opposition” to the motion. Leave to file a second opposition after the reply was not granted by the court and said filing is otherwise statutorily improper.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ROTH STAFFING COMPANIES, L.P. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer VASQUEZ DAVIL R. ESQ.