Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/11/2019 at 11:16:38 (UTC).

MARIA LUISA REYES VS 795 ENTERPRISES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/17/2017 MARIA LUISA REYES filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against 795 ENTERPRISES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9972

  • Filing Date:

    10/17/2017

  • 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

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

REYES MARIA LUISA

Defendants and Respondents

ASHRAF NAZRIN

DOES 1 TO 50

795 ENTERPRISES INC

ASHRAF MOHAMMED

TORRES ANDY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MOGHADDAMI ALI R. ESQ.

SABA RYAN

MOGHADDAMI ALI R ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

EMILIO DANIEL G. ESQ.

EMILIO DANIEL G ESQ.

CORTEZ LAURIE MELISSA

 

Court Documents

CIVIL DEPOSIT

2/5/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

Minute Order

2/14/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

7/27/2018: NOTICE OF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

DECLARATION OF ANDY TORRES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

8/1/2018: DECLARATION OF ANDY TORRES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT ANDY TORRES

8/30/2018: STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT ANDY TORRES

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

9/4/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

Opposition

11/5/2018: Opposition

Unknown

11/9/2018: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

11/21/2018: Notice of Ruling

Notice

1/9/2019: Notice

Declaration

1/9/2019: Declaration

Motion to Compel

1/30/2019: Motion to Compel

Declaration

1/30/2019: Declaration

Unknown

1/18/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

10/30/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/31/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES (C.C.P. 425.115)

10/17/2017: NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES (C.C.P. 425.115)

SUMMONS

10/17/2017: SUMMONS

33 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/04/2019
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by MARIA LUISA REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Attendance and Testimony of witness at deposition, Request for Bench Warrant) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Declaration (OF ALI R. MOGHADDAMI; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME ETC.); Filed by MARIA LUISA REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Declaration (In Support of Motion To Compel Witness At Deposition); Filed by MARIA LUISA REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Motion To Compel Witness At Deposition); Filed by MARIA LUISA REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (and Motion t Continue Trial and Related Cut Off Dates or in the alternative, for Shortened Notice of the Hearing of Motion) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Ruling on Ex Parte Application); Filed by 795 ENTERPRISES INC (Defendant); MOHAMMED ASHRAF (Defendant); NAZRIN ASHRAF (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
73 More Docket Entries
  • 10/30/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by MARIA LUISA REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by MARIA LUISA REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK PUNITIVE DAMAGES (C.C.P. 425.115)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF GOV T CODE 12925(D), 12926(D) 12940(J); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC679972    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Maria Luisa Reyes’s Motion to Permit Financial Condition Discovery under Civil Code § 3295 is DENIED. No sanctions are awarded.

Defendants to provide notice.

I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT FINANCIAL CONDITION DISCOERY

Discovery as to the financial condition of a defendant for the purposes of establishing the suitability of a punitive damages award under Civil Code § 3294 cannot proceed “unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery,” and then only after “the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294.” (Civ. Code § 3295, subd. (c).) ““In this context, a substantial probability of prevailing on a claim for punitive damages means that it is very likely that the plaintiff will prevail on such a claim or there is a strong likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on such a claim.” (I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 257, 283, quotation marks omitted.) This is different from a finding that the evidence is sufficient to maintain a plaintiff’s case against summary judgment, and the court must weigh the evidence presented by both sides to reach its decision. (See Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.)

The basis for Plaintiff’s motion is as follows. She has served eight document requests upon Defendant 795 Enterprises, her employer, and eight more document requests upon Defendants Mohammed Ashraf and Nazrin Ashraf, who own 795 Enterprises, and whom Plaintiff alleges are liable by the doctrine of alter ego. (FAC ¶ 8.) From 795 Enterprises, the requests seek income and profit statements, documents identifying indebtedness, business plans, asset itemizations, bank statements, and state and federal tax documents. (Motion Exh. H.) From the Ashraf Defendants, Plaintiff sought documents evidencing net worth and financial condition, documents showing indebtedness, documents showing payments from 795 Enterprises, and others. (Motion Exh. G.)

Defendants responded to these requests with objections contending the requests sought financial condition discovery without leave of court under section 3295. (Motion Exh. I.)

Plaintiff contends that financial condition discovery is permissible under section 3295 because it is very likely that she will prevail on her claim for punitive damages against the named defendants. Plaintiff presents her deposition testimony concerning the many instances of unwanted sexual advances and touching inflicted upon her by defendant Andy Torres. (Motion Exh. C.) She also presents the testimony of another co-worker to whom Torres also directed unwanted and explicit sexual advances. (Motion Exh. D.) Plaintiff also presents evidence that Torres was a “managing agent” of 795 Enterprises such that his conduct is sufficient to attribute liability to that corporate defendant. (Motion at pp. 1–3.) This is because Torres was the sole manager of the Tujunga IHOP location that was the sole business of 795 Enterprises, and it was he who was entrusted with the day-to-day power of enacting the policies of the corporation. (Motion Exh. A at pp. 43–44; Exh. B at pp. 68–69.)

In response, Defendants highlight the following evidence. They point out that Plaintiff testified that she worked with Torres at another location without incident before coming to the Tujunga IHOP. (Opposition at p. 2.) They note that 795 Enterprises has a zero-tolerance harassment policy. (Opposition at pp. 2–3.) Defendant Mohammad Ashraf contends that Plaintiff never reported any harassment to him, that he did not know of any workplace injury until Plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter. (Mohammad Decl. ¶¶ 21, 24–25.) Mohammad also denies that Torres possessed check-signing authority or the authority to make or change company policy. (Mohammad Decl. ¶¶ 33–34.) They point to testimony by Torres denying any unwelcome sexual contact and claiming that Plaintiff voluntarily resigned after he discussed with her the availability of accommodations for her claimed injury. (Mohammad Decl. Exh. 5.) Defendants also present the testimony of Martha Guardarrama, who says that Plaintiff spoke to her about another lawsuit brought by an acquaintance against IHOP, and that Plaintiff thought such a suit might be a good way of making money. (Opposition at pp. 4–5.)

Defendants also cite procedural difficulties with this motion. Specifically, they note that similar discovery requests to the one at issue were served in October 2018, and the time has run in which to seek further responses on that discovery. (Motion at pp. 14–15.) Furthermore, Defendants note that they served their objections to the discovery presently at issue in November 2020, and that the deadline for a motion to compel further responses to those requests was January 27, 2021. (Opposition at p. 15.) Thus, the present motion, filed on March 1, 2021, was one month late.

Defendants are correct in part on their procedural argument. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses from Defendants to the particular discovery requests at issue, the motion is governed by the deadlines set forth in the Discovery Act. As such, since the motion is untimely under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310, the court is without authority to rule upon Plaintiffs’ requests for further responses “other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

This does not mean, however, that the court lacks authority to grant Plaintiff leave to conduct financial condition discovery under Civil Code § 3295, based on potential discovery other than that already propounded upon Defendants. Such an order is not based on particular discovery requests, which would remain otherwise subject to the Discovery Act, but on a showing of likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the claims. (Civ. Code § 3295, subd. (b).) Since such a showing is not necessarily connected to the service of any particular discovery, the passage of the deadline for the particular requests identified in the motion is not fatal to Plaintiff’s argument.

However, the evidence presented is not sufficient to allow the discovery that Plaintiff seeks here. First, there has been no showing of a likelihood of prevailing against the Ashraf Defendants by virtue of their conduct or their ownership of 795 Enterprises. Plaintiff presents no evidence that they directed or ratified Torres’s conduct, or that they were otherwise aware of it while it occurred. Although Plaintiff alleges alter ego liability against them via 795 Enterprises, Plaintiff presents no evidence for this court to conclude that it is substantially likely to prove their liability for punitive damages in that fashion. Thus, the motion is DENIED as to the Ashraf Defendants.

The motion is a closer case with respect to 795 Enterprises. Plaintiff has presented compelling evidence that Torres is a “managing agent” of 795 Enterprises under Civil Code § 3294. A managing agent is someone with “substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy” (Davis v. Kiewit Pacific Co. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 358, 369.) And while Torres did not directly draft any corporate policy, he was the only day-to-day manager of 795 Enterprises’ sole business: the Tujunga IHOP franchise. In this respect, he had the power to hire, train, discipline, and fire employees, direct their schedules, their duties, and other matters. (Motion Exh. B at pp. 67–68.) Although 795 Enterprises’ written policies may have been drafted by the Ashraf Defendants, it was Torres, in practice, who had the ultimate day-to-day discretion to interpret and enforce them. This practical power over company policy is akin to the activity of a managing agent. (See Davis v. Kiewit Pacific Co. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 358, 372 [holding that supervisor with authority to enforce anti-discrimination policies could be managing agent].)

This notwithstanding, the evidence is insufficient to conclude that Plaintiff is “very likely” to prevail upon her claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff’s claims for harassment and wrongful termination are supported by her own testimony. Her claim for harassment is corroborated by the “me too” testimony of Denise Coronado. (Motion Exh. D.) At the same time, Torres denies that he harassed Plaintiff, and testifies that instead of firing her, she walked off the job. Plaintiff’s credibility may be called into question by the testimony of Martha Guadarrama, who says that Plaintiff discussed suing IHOP as a means of making money. (Opposition Exh. 10.) Weighing the evidence together, there is not a “strong likelihood” that Plaintiff will be able to obtain punitive damages.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

The Ashraf Defendants ask for $6,375.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310, representing 15 hours of attorney work at $425.00 per hour. (Hacohen Decl. ¶ 19.) The court finds that no sanctions are warranted, since this motion is properly characterized as one under Civil Code § 3295, rather than the Discovery Act.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MOGHADDAMI ALI R.