This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:50:47 (UTC).

MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ VS PHARMAVITE LLC

Case Summary

On 08/03/2017 MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against PHARMAVITE LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1153

  • Filing Date:

    08/03/2017

  • 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

MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MARTINEZ MARIA GUADALUPE

Defendants and Respondents

PHARMAVITE LLC

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

PAIRAVI LAW PC

PAIRAVI EDWIN ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

LECRONE JOHN PRESCOTT

 

Court Documents

ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

4/10/2018: ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Request for Judicial Notice

10/5/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

10/5/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition

10/5/2018: Opposition

Ex Parte Application

10/5/2018: Ex Parte Application

Declaration

10/5/2018: Declaration

Opposition

10/9/2018: Opposition

Motion for Protective Order

10/12/2018: Motion for Protective Order

Request for Refund / Order

11/15/2018: Request for Refund / Order

Minute Order

2/6/2019: Minute Order

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

2/27/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Unknown

3/21/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

3/21/2019: Minute Order

Reply

4/12/2019: Reply

Declaration

4/16/2019: Declaration

Ex Parte Application

4/17/2019: Ex Parte Application

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

4/19/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

9/7/2017: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

83 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/17/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 74; Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 4:00 PM in Department 74; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 3:30 PM in Department 74; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (For An Order Continuing The Trial and Related Dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Unopposed Ex Parte Application For An Order Continuing The Trial and Related Dates); Filed by Pharmavite, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For An Order Continuing The T...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • [Proposed] Order On Ex Parte Application For An Order Continuing The Trial and Related Dates; Filed by Pharmavite, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 3:30 PM in Department 74; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Motion for Leave (to File First Amended Complaint); Filed by Maria Guadalupe Martinez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
129 More Docket Entries
  • 10/10/2017
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Maria Guadalupe Martinez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Maria Guadalupe Martinez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION [CAL. GOV. CODE SECTION 12940 ET SEQ.]; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC671153    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 74

BC671153 MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ VS PHARMAVITE LLC

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is overruled. The motion to strike portions of the complaint is denied.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of plaintiff’s DFEH complaint is GRANTED

First Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination, Second Cause of Action for Failure to Accommodate and Fifth Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

Defendant argues that the amended complaint raises a theory of disparate impact of a facially neutral policy for the first time and that it is barred by the statute of limitations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Regarding administrative exhaustion, ‘what is submitted to the DFEH must not only be construed liberally in favor of plaintiff, it must be construed in light of what might be uncovered by a reasonable investigation.’ ” (Wills v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 155; quoting Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 268.)

Plaintiff’s administrative complaint states that she was terminated because of her disability due to discrimination, retaliation, failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to accommodate her disability, and that defendant refused to abide by plaintiff’s work restrictions. It does not address the underlying facts or show how the claims alleged will be proven. Nothing negates a disparate impact claim, which is one method of providing the claims. A reasonable investigation could have discovered that the rotation policy did not accommodate plaintiff’s, or any other employee’s, disability. The DFEH complaint is broad enough to encompass a disparate impact claim.

“[I]f an amendment is sought after the statute of limitations has run, the amended complaint will be deemed filed as of the date of the original complaint provided recovery is sought in both pleadings on the same general set of facts.” (Amaral v. Cintas Corporation No. 2 (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1199.) “[P]roper amendments to an original complaint ‘relate back’ to the date of the filing of the original complaint, despite the amendments being made after the statute of limitations has expired.” (Garrison v. Board of Directors (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1670, 1678.)

The original complaint alleged plaintiff suffered a work-related injury, was placed on leave, and could have returned at the end of her leave with work restrictions but was terminated on the grounds that there were no existing jobs plaintiff could perform with her restrictions. Paragraph 23, in the first cause of action and incorporated into subsequent causes of action, alleges that defendant’s policies and procedures were applied to her differently than to other employees.

The amended complaint alleges that defendant’s policies were neutral on their face, but resulted in disparate impact which treated plaintiff differently based on her disability, and specifically the rotation policy and workers compensation settlement policy. (FAC, ¶¶ 16, 17 and 18.)

Both versions of the complaint are based on the same general set of facts, that plaintiff was terminated because defendant refused to accommodate her disability and because she filed a workers compensation claim. The causes of action alleged are the same. The first amended complaint is alleged with more specificity than the original complaint. The new allegations relate back to the filing of the original complaint.

Demurrers for uncertainty are strictly construed, because discovery can be used for clarification, and apply where defendants cannot reasonably determine what issues or claims are stated. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) The failure to identify claims and parties by labeling causes of action may render a complaint uncertain, except where the complaint contains allegations sufficiently apprising defendants of the issues, in which case a demurrer should be overruled. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 135, 139.)

As shown by the demurrer, defendant can reasonably determine the issues and claims stated and has been sufficiently apprised of the issues.

The demurrer is overruled.

Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint

Defendant moves to strike the allegations relating to disparate impact. The motion is denied for the reasons stated above.