This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/04/2019 at 01:19:32 (UTC).

RAMONA BURTON VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/21/2018 RAMONA BURTON filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ANTHONY MOHR. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4770

  • Filing Date:

    02/21/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ANTHONY MOHR

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

BURTON RAMONA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-10

LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

ASHLEY RUTH

FRENCH KATHY

BLAZER SANDY

HUTCHINS CHAD EARL

COLUNGA HUTX

COLUNGA HUTX FKA CHAD EARL HUTCHINS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

TRAYLOR MICHAEL S. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

MCCUNE DANA JOHN ESQ

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

5/2/2018: DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY-CIVIL

6/6/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY-CIVIL

NOTICE OF RULING OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/26/2018: NOTICE OF RULING OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF NON=OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

7/26/2018: NOTICE OF NON=OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY OF ORAL ARUGMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

8/6/2018: DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY OF ORAL ARUGMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF LODGING REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

8/13/2018: NOTICE OF LODGING REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER

8/23/2018: RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER

Motion to Compel

10/12/2018: Motion to Compel

Minute Order

12/11/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

12/11/2018: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

12/13/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/21/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

2/22/2019: Notice of Ruling

Substitution of Attorney

4/11/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Declaration

4/26/2019: Declaration

Separate Statement

4/26/2019: Separate Statement

Opposition

6/26/2019: Opposition

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION-DISABILITY, ETC

2/21/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION-DISABILITY, ETC

58 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/02/2019
  • Reply (DEFENDANTS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, HUTX COLUNGA, KATHY FRENCH, RUTH ASHLEY, AND SANDY BLAZER'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORIT); Filed by Long Beach Unified School District (Defendant); Hutx Colunga (Defendant); Kathy French (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Objection (DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION); Filed by Long Beach Unified School District (Defendant); Hutx Colunga (Defendant); Kathy French (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Response (PLAINTIFF?S RESPONSIVE SEPARATE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION(S) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES); Filed by Ramona Burton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Declaration (of Plaintiff Ramona Burton in Opposition to MSJ); Filed by Ramona Burton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Opposition (to Motion for Summary Adjudication/Judgment); Filed by Ramona Burton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 96, Anthony Mohr, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Stay or Continuance/Denial of MSJ) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 96, Anthony Mohr, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Stay or Continuance/Denial of MSJ) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Stay or Continuance/Denia...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Long Beach Unified School District (Defendant); Hutx Colunga (Defendant); Kathy French (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Opposition (TO PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO: 1) STAY ENTIRE CASE AND/OR 2) CONTINUE/DENY DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION); Filed by Long Beach Unified School District (Defendant); Hutx Colunga (Defendant); Kathy French (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
88 More Docket Entries
  • 04/19/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASES DEEMED RELATED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Ramona Burton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Ramona Burton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Ramona Burton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION-DISABILITY, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Ramona Burton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC694770 Hearing Date: August 27, 2021 Dept: 54

\r\n\r\n

\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

Superior Court of California

\r\n

County of Los Angeles

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Ramona\r\n Burton,

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

Plaintiff,

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Case No.:

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

BC694770

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

vs.

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Tentative\r\n Ruling

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Long\r\n Beach Unified School District, et al., \r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

Defendants.

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

Hearing Date: August 27, 2021

\r\n\r\n

Department\r\n54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

\r\n\r\n

Motion\r\nto Reopen Discovery and for Relief from Preclusionary Order

\r\n\r\n

Moving\r\nParty: Plaintiff\r\nRamona Burton

\r\n\r\n

Responding\r\nParty:\r\nDefendants Long Beach Unified School District, Hutx Colunga, Kathy French, Ruth\r\nAshley, and Sandy Blazer

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

T/R: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff to notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

If the\r\nparties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party)\r\nbefore 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.¿

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nCourt considers the moving papers and opposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff sued\r\nDefendants LBUSD, Hutx Colunga, Kathy French, Ruth Ashley and Sandy Blazer,\r\nasserting causes of action for (1) employment discrimination (disability); (2)\r\nemployment discrimination (retaliation); (3) violation of Labor Code § 1102.5;\r\n(4) defamation; (5) violation of privacy; (6) employment discrimination\r\n(religion); (7) employment discrimination (harassment); (8) intentional\r\ninfliction of emotional distress; and (9) negligence.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

CCP §\r\n2024.050 provides,

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(a) On motion of any party, the court\r\nmay grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion\r\nconcerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen\r\ndiscovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied\r\nby a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(b) In exercising its discretion to\r\ngrant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter\r\nrelevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(1) The\r\nnecessity and the reasons for the discovery.

\r\n\r\n

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence\r\nof the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and\r\nthe reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion\r\nwas not heard earlier.

\r\n\r\n

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the\r\ndiscovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to\r\ntrial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or\r\nresult in prejudice to any other party.

\r\n\r\n

(4) The length of time that has elapsed\r\nbetween any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of\r\nthe action.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Trial in this matter initially was set for August 14,\r\n2019, with a discovery cut-off date of July 15, 2020. Trial was continued to\r\nFebruary 24, 2020, and then again to October 4, 2021 due to the COVID-19\r\npandemic. Plaintiff moves to reopen discovery to serve interrogatories\r\ninquiring into the employment of witness, interrogatories and requests for\r\nproduction regarding Defendants’ investigation of Plaintiff’s claims since\r\nMarch 2020 and requests for production of any newly-discovered evidence.\r\nPlaintiff also moves for reconsideration of the Court’s September 26, 2019 ruling\r\non Defendants’ motion for evidentiary sanctions, in which the Court precluded\r\nPlaintiff from testifying at trial. Plaintiff asserts that the length of time\r\nbetween the original hearing date and current hearing date warrants reopening\r\nof discovery. As for the Court’s September 26, 2019 Order, Plaintiff asserts\r\nthat she did not appear for her deposition because Defendant’s were in default\r\nand she is now willing to appear for deposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments. As\r\ndiscussed at length in the opposition, Plaintiff repeatedly obstructed and\r\nrefused to participate in discovery, despite many chances to participate. This\r\naction was filed three and a half years ago; Plaintiff has had plenty of time\r\nto conduct discovery. Plaintiff instead waited two years after the discovery\r\ncut-off had passed and two months before trial to bring this motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The\r\nCourt also declines to reconsider its order precluding Plaintiff from\r\ntestifying. Plaintiff provides no authority showing that Plaintiff’s pro per status\r\nor Defendants’ default are grounds to reconsider the order. The mere lapse in\r\ntime between the original trial date and the current one is not a new or\r\ndifferent fact or circumstance. These arguments have been rejected by this\r\nCourt and the Court of Appeal via writ.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT A PUBLIC ENTITY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer TRAYLOR MICHAEL STEVEN