This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/04/2021 at 06:31:24 (UTC).

SILVA ATWATER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/01/2018 SILVA ATWATER filed a Labor - Other Labor 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 TERRY A. GREEN, ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE and LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6028

  • Filing Date:

    03/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

TERRY A. GREEN

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

ATWATER SILVA

Respondents and Defendants

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MCNICHOLAS MATTHEW S. ESQ.

MCNICHOLAS MATTHEW S.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

LYON DOUGLAS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY

LYON DOUGLAS

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (IN CAMERA INSPECTION)

7/22/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (IN CAMERA INSPECTION)

Notice of Ruling

7/22/2019: Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING RELIEF TO RESCHEDULE THE IN CAMERA HEARING FOR PLAINTIFF'S PITCHESS MOTION

7/30/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING RELIEF TO RESCHEDULE THE IN CAMERA HEARING FOR PLAINTIFF'S PITCHESS MOTION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (EX-PARTE APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF (SILVA ATWATER), REQUESTING...)

8/1/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (EX-PARTE APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF (SILVA ATWATER), REQUESTING...)

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING RELIEF TO RESCHEDULE THE IN CAMERA HEARING FOR PLAINTIFF'S PITCHESS MOTION

8/8/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING RELIEF TO RESCHEDULE THE IN CAMERA HEARING FOR PLAINTIFF'S PITCHESS MOTION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING RELIEF...)

8/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING RELIEF...)

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

9/4/2019: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (IN CAMERA HEARING)

9/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (IN CAMERA HEARING)

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION ONLY

9/27/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DESIGNATION ONLY

Separate Statement

11/15/2019: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

11/15/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration - DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS LYON AND COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DF'S MSJ

11/15/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS LYON AND COMPENDIUM OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DF'S MSJ

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

11/15/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ABEL P. NAIR IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/27/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ABEL P. NAIR IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE RELIED ON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/27/2020: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE RELIED ON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF LIEUTENANT II SILVA ATWATER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/27/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF LIEUTENANT II SILVA ATWATER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/27/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DETECTIVE III VIVIAN FLORES

1/27/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DETECTIVE III VIVIAN FLORES

98 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/30/2021
  • Hearing11/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial ((estimate15 days)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order re: Notice of Conditional Settlement) of 08/31/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re: Notice of Conditional Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2021
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by Silva Atwater (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketBrief (Plaintiff Silva Atwater's Brief Regarding Adverse Employment Action and CACI Jury Instruction Nos. 2505 and 2507); Filed by Silva Atwater (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketMotion in Limine (No. 4 to Exclude Evidence, Testimony and/or Argument Related to Plaintiff's Economic Damages); Filed by Silva Atwater (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial ((estimate15 days)) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
139 More Docket Entries
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Silva Atwater (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Silva Atwater (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6) (filed by plaintiff Silva Atwater against the Honorable Terry A. Green - Department 14); Filed by Silva Atwater (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Silva Atwater (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA (CAL. GOV'T GOV;T C. 12940 ET SEQ.); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696028    Hearing Date: March 23, 2021    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1

Plaintiff Silva Atwater seeks an order allowing the use of an electronic presentation during her opening statement. The parties are to exchange all electronic evidence and electronic materials they plan to use in their opening statements at least 24 hours before the opening statements. If any party objects to such electronic evidence or electronic materials, that party is to inform the other side of the objection within four hours of receiving the evidence or materials, and the parties are then to meet and confer to resolve the objections. Any remaining objections may be made to the Court the morning before opening statements. The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 2

Plaintiff Silva Atwater seeks at least two hours of voir dire. The Court will determine the necessary voir dire at the Final Status Conference. The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s MIL No. 3

Plaintiff Silva Atwater seeks to exclude all statements from public safety officers to Internal Affairs regarding Plaintiff’s complaints, except for impeachment, pursuant to Government Code section 3303, subdivision (f)(3). That section states that no statement made during interrogation by a public safety officer under duress, coercion, or threat of punitive action is admissible unless used to impeach the officer. Defendant City of Los Angeles argues that section only applies to witnesses who were under investigation.

Section 3303 states, “When any public safety officer is under investigation and subjected to interrogation by his or her commanding officer, or any other member of the employing public safety department, that could lead to punitive action, the interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions. . . .” Section 3303, subdivision (f) then states: “No statement made during interrogation by a public safety officer under duress, coercion, or threat of punitive action shall be admissible in any subsequent civil proceeding.”

Plaintiff did not show that this subdivision applies to all statements given by a public safety officer, even if those statements are not given by an officer under investigation “that could lead to punitive action” and not given “under duress, coercion or threat of punitive action.” Plaintiff did not show that the statements she seeks to exclude were given under duress, coercion or threat of punitive action.

Plaintiff argues the statements to Internal Affairs are not depositions. But that is not reason alone to exclude them.

Plaintiff argues the statements to Internal Affairs are not party admissions and are prejudicial. Plaintiff does not identify any particular statement that is not a party admission and that is prejudicial. Therefore the motion is too vague. If at the time of trial, Defendant seeks to introduce a specific statement, Plaintiff can object at that time. The motion is DENIED.

Defendant’s MIL No. 1

Defendant City of Los Angeles seeks to exclude “me too” evidence from other officers who claim they were retaliated against for complaining about an unrelated matter not involving harassment based on gender. In particular, Defendant mentions David Dooros, Elliott Zibli and Karolin Clark as three witnesses who should not testify. Defendant does not give details about their complaints. In its reply, Defendant also argues Kris Kenney did not work for the alleged harasser Phil Hearn, Vivian Flores does not have “me too” testimony of any sort, and Esperanza Mariscal does not have “me too” information. Plaintiff Silva Atwater argues she should be allowed to present “me too” evidence generally.

“Courts have sanctioned the use of ‘me too’ evidence, which is evidence of an employer’s alleged gender bias ‘in the form of harassing activity against women employees other than the plaintiff’ in certain circumstances. [Citation.] . . . The ‘me too’ doctrine, however, does not permit a plaintiff to present evidence of discrimination against employees outside of he plaintiff’s protected class to show discrimination or harassment against the plaintiff.” (Pinter-Brown v. Regents of University of California (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 55, 96.) “[T]he question the court must consider in deciding whether to admit evidence of discrimination raised by other employees is ‘ “fact based and depends on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of the case.” ’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 97.)

The parties did not show how closely related the anticipated testimony is to the plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of the case. At this point, the motion is DENIED. At the Final Status Conference, the parties will be expected to explain the anticipated testimony of each person on the joint witness list. If the witnesses are “me too” witnesses, the party presenting the witnesses must show that the testimony is closely enough related to Plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of the case and involved gender discrimination or harassment.

Defendant’s MIL No. 2

Defendant City of Los Angeles seeks to exclude reptile theory arguments. Plaintiff argues the motion is vague and does not identify any specific evidence to be excluded. The motion is DENIED as vague and not sufficiently particular. If during trial a party makes an improper argument, the other side should object at that time.

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 MCNICHOLAS MATTHEW S. ESQ.