This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 23:36:18 (UTC).

LUIS PINEDA VS MODERN INTERIORS

Case Summary

On 05/08/2017 LUIS PINEDA filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against MODERN INTERIORS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0651

  • Filing Date:

    05/08/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PINEDA LUIS

Defendant

INTERIORS MODERN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MARTIN LILIUOKALANI H.

YOUNESSI RAMIN RAY ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

ORTIZ SAMANTHA LAUREN

SABA RYAN DONALD ESQ.

DIOGUARDI FRANCESCA NOEL

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

5/15/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

NOTICE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/1/2017: NOTICE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE D. MEYER REGARDING GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.41(A)(2)

7/5/2017: DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE D. MEYER REGARDING GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.41(A)(2)

DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; ETC.

8/4/2017: DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; ETC.

Unknown

8/17/2017: Unknown

Unknown

8/25/2017: Unknown

Unknown

8/30/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

9/11/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

9/11/2017: Unknown

DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE D. MEYER REGARDING GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41 (A)(2) REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/13/2017: DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE D. MEYER REGARDING GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41 (A)(2) REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

11/13/2017: DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC

PLAINTIFF LUIS PINEDA'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1/19/2018: PLAINTIFF LUIS PINEDA'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Unknown

1/23/2018: Unknown

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' PURPORTED OFFER TO COMPROMISE

1/25/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' PURPORTED OFFER TO COMPROMISE

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIALITY OF DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION

1/25/2018: STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIALITY OF DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION

DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1/25/2018: DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

2/1/2018: Minute Order

79 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examination) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Deposition) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • DocketOrder (Re: PLAINTIFF LUIS PINEDA?S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF MEGAN PADILLA, AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIOR?S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PROHIBIT DEPOSITION OF MEGAN PADILLA AND PRODUCTION OF DO); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Deposition; Hear...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • DocketOpposition (TO DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS? MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PROHIBIT DEPOSITION OF MEGAN PADILLA AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND PLAINTIFF?S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 4,300); Filed by Luis Pineda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • DocketStipulation - No Order (Re Briefing Schedule on Defendant's motion for protective order)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • DocketReply (TO DEFENDANT?S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF LUIS PINEDA?S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF MEGAN PADILLA, AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 4,860.00 AGAINST DE); Filed by Luis Pineda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Advance Hearing on Defendant's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Deposition of Megan Padilla and Shorten Time for the Hearing and Briefing Schedule on the Motion for Protective Order) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
135 More Docket Entries
  • 07/05/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Modern INteriors (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/06/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/03/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Luis Pineda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Luis Pineda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/01/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/15/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV'T CODE 1294O ET SEQ. ;ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Luis Pineda (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****0651    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 26

No dispositive tentative ruling is issued as to Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication. The parties may appear at the June 26, 2020 (11:00 am) hearing to present oral arguments, or the parties may submit on the papers.

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THIS MOTION.



Case Number: ****0651    Hearing Date: March 04, 2020    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

LUIS PINEDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MODERN INTERIORS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****0651

Hearing Date: March 4, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

PLAINTIFF LUIS PINEDA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF Alex skoda, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Background

This is a wrongful termination action concerning age and disability discrimination. The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiff Luis Pineda (“Plaintiff”) was employed by Defendant Modern Interiors (“Defendant”) as an installer and foreman. Plaintiff had emergency heart surgery, which affected his ability to perform his work and resulted in a disability. Plaintiff’s disability required him to be off work while he recovered. However, while Plaintiff was on disability leave, Defendant terminated his employment. In addition, Defendant violated Labor Code sections by failing to pay wages, failing to pay overtime, failing to provide rest periods, and failing to provide itemized wage statements.

On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff sent notice for a second deposition of Alex Skoda (“Skoda”) set for September 5, 2019 with a request for production of documents. (Carthorn Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Skoda is an employee of Defendant. On August 29, 2019, Defendant responded with objections to the request for production of documents and stated that it had already produced documents related to some of the requests. (Dioguardi Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) On September 5, 2019, Skoda appeared for the deposition but was unable to answer a few questions regarding 2016 work schedules as the documents provided by Defendant for this deposition were incomplete. (Nakahiro Decl. ¶ 6.)

On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Skoda and production of documents, and request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,560.00 against Defendant. On February 20, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition stating that Plaintiff never served any notice for a third deposition, that a new deposition has been scheduled for February 27, 2020, and that the requested documents have been provided. On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply that does not contest these assertions in Defendant’s opposition. Instead, Plaintiff’s reply simply states that Plaintiff has not had enough time to review the produced records, and that this motion is necessary to assure that the scheduled deposition occurs.

Legal Standard

Compel Deposition and Production of Documents

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” (Code Civ. Proc. ; 2025.010.) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc. ; 2025.450(a).)

“The motion shall set forth the following: (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc. ; 2025.450(b)(1)-(2).)

Discussion

Discovery Cut-Off

As a preliminary matter, pursuant to the parties stipulation and the minute order on September 9, 2019, the discovery and motion cut-off date has been extended with respect to the new trial date of July 6, 2020, only with respect to job schedules, crew schedules, and timecards and the depositions of Alex Skoda and Donald Bigler with respect to these topics.

This motion is within the time restraints of discovery as it falls directly in the stipulated categories of discovery.

Compel Deposition

Skoda did appear for his September 9, 2019, deposition, and Plaintiff has not served any notice for a third deposition of Skoda. (Dioguardi Decl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff does not contest or provide proof otherwise. Further, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to serve a deposition notice for a third deposition of Skoda, the parties voluntarily scheduled a third deposition of Skoda for February 27, 2020. Plaintiff does not assert that the third deposition did not go forward on February 27, 2020, as scheduled.

As Plaintiff has never served a notice of a third deposition, and in any event, Skoda sat for a third deposition on February 27, 2020, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Alex Skoda is DENIED. (See Code Civ. Proc. ; 2025.450(a).)

Compel Production of Documents

Defendant states that on February 19, 2020, it produced all of the at-issue documents that Plaintiff requested. (Dioguardi Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff does not dispute this assertion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is DENIED AS MOOT.

Monetary Sanctions

“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. ; 2025.450(g)(1).)

As Plaintiff did not notice a deposition for Skoda, sanctions would be inappropriate under this section. Further, the Court finds that sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 are unwarranted as Defendant has produced the at-issue documents and has provided Skoda for a third deposition before the hearing date for this motion despite Plaintiff’s failure to serve notice for a third deposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Alex Skoda’s deposition is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s production of documents is MOOT. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff is to give notice of this order, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: March 4, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer DIOGUARDI FRANCESCA N.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ORTIZ SAMANTHA LAUREN

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SABA RYAN D