This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2019 at 09:03:29 (UTC).

ROSARIO MORALES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/29/2017 ROSARIO MORALES filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GREGORY W. ALARCON and ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8647

  • Filing Date:

    12/29/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GREGORY W. ALARCON

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MORALES ROSARIO V.

Defendants and Respondents

RICHTER KAREN

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

DOES 1 TO 10

CESSOR LINDA M.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

HULL ANN A. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

BLACK SHANISE MARIE

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/13/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/21/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN AMMENDED COMPLAINT

3/1/2018: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE AN AMMENDED COMPLAINT

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

3/16/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Minute Order

3/28/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

4/3/2018: NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/6/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

4/11/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF LODGING OF FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

4/11/2018: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF LODGING OF FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DECLARATION OF SHANISE BLACK

4/11/2018: DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DECLARATION OF SHANISE BLACK

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

4/17/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Unknown

4/30/2018: Unknown

Unknown

5/2/2018: Unknown

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER

5/11/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER

DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO ITS DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

5/21/2018: DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO ITS DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

6/5/2018: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

RULING: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/5/2018: RULING: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

6/5/2018: Minute Order

51 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Defendant City of Los Angeles' Motion for Summary ...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketRuling: Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Defendant City of Los Angeles' Motion for Summary ...) of 05/29/2019); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • DocketNotice (of Errata); Filed by Ann A. Hull, Esq. (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Part 2 of Declaration of Ann A. Hull); Filed by Ann A. Hull, Esq. (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketObjection ([Defendant] Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff's Opposition to MSJ; Suppl Decl of S. Black); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketResponse ([Defendant] Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Declarations of Norma Gutierrez & Gary Hill ISO MSJ); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketReply ([Defendant] to Plaintiff's Opposition to its MSJ or alternatively Summary Adjudication); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
86 More Docket Entries
  • 02/01/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF SHANISE BLACK IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.41(A)(2)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/29/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Rosario V. Morales (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/29/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT: (1) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/29/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8647    Hearing Date: July 10, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

On December 29, 2017, Plaintiff Rosario Morales filed this action alleging various claims related to her employment with and termination from the Los Angeles Fire Department. In 2019, Plaintiff agreed to dismiss Karen Richter as a defendant based on an agreement that Defendant City of Los Angeles would make her available for a deposition. Plaintiff requested Richter’s deposition in 2018.

On March 15, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff requested the deposition of Karen Richter in April and May 2019. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the summary judgment motion on May 15, 2019, which included a declaration from counsel stating that Richter among others had information concerning the summary judgment issues, but that the evidence could not be presented because the witnesses had not yet been opposed. At the hearing on May 29, 2019, the Court granted the continuance of the motion to July 15, 2019 to allow depositions. The Court also continued the trial date from July 15, 2019 to August 15, 2019, but did not continue the discovery cutoff dates. Fact discovery therefore cutoff on June 15, 2019.

On May 29, 2019, defense counsel asked Plaintiff’s counsel for the names of the people to be deposed for Plaintiff to oppose the summary judgment motion and stated she needed the names by June 5, 2019. Plaintiff’s counsel responded on June 17, 2019 (after the fact discovery cutoff date), and received an email back that defense counsel was out of the office until July 1, 2019.

After the June 15, 2019 fact discovery cutoff, Plaintiff’s counsel continued to ask for Richter’s deposition. On August 20, 2019, the parties filed a joint witness list identifying Richter as a witness. The Court continued the July 15, 2019 trial due to various schedule conflicts and ultimately took it off calendar due to the pandemic. The new trial date has not yet been set.

On April 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Richter’s deposition. Plaintiff argues that she will be prejudiced without the deposition because Richter is on Defendant’s witness list. Defendant argues that fact discovery ended more than a year ago. In her reply, Plaintiff argues her motion should be considered as a motion to reopen fact discovery.

Except as otherwise provided, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2024.020, subd. (a).) On the motion of any party, the court may reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2024.050.) The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff argues Richter’s deposition is necessary because she will be a witness at trial, was her supervisor, and terminated her. Defendant does not dispute that Richter has relevant knowledge of issues in dispute. The joint witness list states that she has knowledge about Plaintiff’s jury service, which does not sound like a key witness. Richter does not seem to be an important part of Plaintiff’s case because Plaintiff does not explain what knowledge Richter has that others do not and did not make substantial efforts to obtain her deposition.

Plaintiff showed little diligence in seeking the discovery. Plaintiff could have moved to compel the deposition in 2018 or 2019. After the Court continued the summary judgment hearing date, Plaintiff could have immediately asked a date for Richter’s deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel could have responded quickly to defense counsel’s letter asking for the names of deponents for the summary judgment opposition by June 5, 2019. After the June 15, 2019 cutoff date, Plaintiff could have moved to reopen discovery instead of waiting eleven months to raise the issue in a reply brief. Plaintiff presents no satisfactory excuse for not taking these steps.

Permitting discovery will not affect the trial date as it is not yet re-set, and Defendant has not argued it will be prejudiced.

On balance, Plaintiff has had years to obtain Richter’s deposition but waited until long after the discovery cutoff to make this request. The motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.



Case Number: ****8647    Hearing Date: May 24, 2021    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendant’s MIL No. 1

Defendant City of Los Angeles moves to exclude evidence from non-retained experts on causation of Plaintiff’s damages and conditions, hearsay statements by plaintiff, and testimony from non-retained experts who are not experts in psychology or psychiatry. This motion is too vague. Defendant did not identify any particular witness or any particular testimony that is expected. The motion is denied.

Defendant’s MIL No. 2

Defendant moves to exclude golden rule arguments. The motion is granted as to asking the jury to put themselves into Plaintiff’s shoes. Otherwise denied as the motion is too vague.

Defendant’s MIL No. 3

Defendant moves to exclude all evidence about events before Plaintiff began her probationary period on October 16, 2016 as irrelevant, misleading, and an undue consumption of time. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s causes of action concern events that occurred in April 2017. Plaintiff argues that her work history is relevant because Defendant contends Plaintiff was terminated for performance reasons.

The motion is denied as too vague and broad. The Court cannot determine at this time that no events before October 16, 2016 are pertinent.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1

Plaintiff Rosario Morales moves to exclude evidence and argument that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because the Court already decided the issue in ruling on Defendant’s summary judgment motion. In its ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the Court stated, “Plaintiff’s claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process are like or reasonably related to her claim made to the DFEH that she was discriminated against for requesting and receiving FMLA leave to care for her daughter.” Therefore, the Court has already determined that there was no failure to exhaust. “Common sense dictates that most failure-to-exhaust issues do not involve triable questions of fact and will therefore be resolved by dispositive motions prior to trial.” (Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1346.) Defendant does not identify any issue on exhaustion remaining for the jury to decide. The motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer HULL ANN A.