This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 01/08/2023 at 11:09:12 (UTC).

Maldonado et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County

Case Summary

On 04/04/2022 Maldonado filed an Other lawsuit against The Superior Court of Orange County. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District - Division 3 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Wilson, Peter. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***1256

  • Filing Date:

    04/04/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Wilson, Peter

 

Party Details

Petitioners

John Maldonado, JR.,

Bernardo Sandoval

Hoang Thi Nguyen

Gregory Maratas

Respondent

The Superior Court of Orange County

Attn: Hon. Peter Wilson Dept. Cx102 700 Civic Center Dr. W.

Santa Ana, CA 92701

Interested Party

Aluminum Precision Products, Inc.,

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Sima Farde

23 Corporate Plaza Ste 150

Newport Beach, CA 92660

Henry J. Josefsberg

10936 Portal Drive

Los Alamitos, CA 90720

Interested Party Attorney

Paul Berkowitz

Attorney at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

1901 Ave Of The Stars Ste 1600

Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/18/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Petition denied or dismissed after alternative writ or palma issued.; Disposition Type: Final

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2022
  • DocketDescription: Record shipped to records center; Notes: All documents are scanned.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2022
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: THE COURT:* Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate. On July 15, 2022, respondent court vacated the order challenged by the petition, and entered a new and different order after giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard; the parties had informed respondent court jointly in writing that "none of the parties oppose the Court complying with Alternative One as set forth in the Alternative Writ." The alternative writ is DISCHARGED. The petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any challenges to respondent court's July 15, 2022 order must come by way of a new writ petition. BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. * Before Bedsworth, Acting P. J., Moore, J., and Marks, J.** **Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/15/2022
  • DocketDescription: Received copy of:; Notes: Superior Court minute order of 07-08-22.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/30/2022
  • DocketDescription: Issued alternative writ.; Notes: THE COURT:* On April 5, 2022, petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging respondent court's order striking portions of the second amended complaint. Real party in interest filed a preliminary opposition on June 8, 2022. Real party in interest conceded that the trial court erred by striking allegations regarding petitioners' whistleblower status. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, respondent court is hereby ordered to: (1) set aside and vacate its January 13, 2022 and January 18, 2022 orders striking portions of the second amended complaint, and enter a new and different order: (a) striking the following portions of the second amended complaint:Page 3, Lines 18-21: "g) Failure to provide safe and healthful work environment; Violation of Labor Code section 6401 by failing to have a proper injury and illness prevention policies in place; h) Failure to comply with Labor Code section 6409.6; COVID 19 workplace exposure notice." Page 4, Lines 11-15: "(8) Failure to provide safe and healthful work environment; Violation of Labor Code section 6401 by failing to have a proper injury and illness prevention policies in place; (9) Failure to comply with Labor Code section 6409.6; COVID 19 workplace exposure notice." Page 9, Lines 18-19: "Additionally, Defendants failed to provide safe and healthful work environment." Page 10, Lines 5-6: "Defendants also violated Labor Code Section 6401.7 which requires an employer to have injury illness prevention policies in place." Page 11, Lines 3-6: "Defendants did not have an injury and illness prevention program that complied with California law, including lacking in training, failing to identify hazards and at times going beyond the norm to conceal hazardous conditions at work in order to avoid costly Workers' Compensation claims or risking an inspection from OSHA." Page 11, Lines 7-17: "Furthermore, Defendants have violated other aspects of providing a safe work environment including failing to take any actions to keep the work place safe or identify hazards such as COVID19. For example, Aggrieved Employees at APP were forced to congregate near the clock/punch machines to clock in or out because Defendants had not installed enough clock machines. Moreover, Scott Saddle, a high-level vice president of the company told employees during a meeting that 'COVID is not real.' Defendants also failed to provide clean drinking water for the Aggrieved Employees, such as at times forcing several employees to drink water out of a cooler subject to contaminating the water container which was brought to their attentionby Plaintiff, John Maldonado before his termination. These unsafe conditions resulted in several Aggrieved Employees to suffer from contracting COVID in 2020 and beyond." Page 15, Lines 24-25: "g) Failure to provide safe and healthful work environment; Violation of Labor Code section 6401 by failing to have a proper injury and illness prevention policies in place." Page 16, Lines 1-2: "h) Failure to comply with Labor Code section 6409.6; COVID 19 workplace exposure notice." and (b) denying the motion to strike as to the following portions of the second amended complaint Page 4, Lines 17-18: "(15) Retaliation for reporting a hazardous condition." Page 16, Lines 11-13: "m) Violation of Labor Code 6310 for retaliation for complaining about occupational safety hazards"; Or, in the alternative, (2) SHOW CAUSE before this court, at a date and time to be designated by this court, why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue. If respondent court is considering compliance with alternative (1) above, it should provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to the parties before changing its order. (See Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233.) If respondent court chooses to comply with alternative (1) above, it shall notify this court within 60 days of the date of this order, and provide a copy of its order complying with the directives in alternative (1).If respondent court chooses not to comply with alternative (1), this court will issue an order specifying the briefing schedule for the return and reply. BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. * Before Bedsworth, Acting P. J., Moore, J., and Marks, J.** **Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/20/2022
  • DocketDescription: Reply filed to:; Notes: Filed by petitioner.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/08/2022
  • DocketDescription: Opposition filed.; Notes: Filed by RPI

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/02/2022
  • DocketDescription: Substitution of attorneys filed for:; Notes: Filed by petitoner.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/02/2022
  • DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Substitution of attorney was rejected, party needs to provide contact information for new attorney.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2022
  • DocketDescription: Opposition requested.; Notes: Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate or other appropriate relief on April 4, 2022. The real parties in interest are invited to file preliminary opposition within 20 days of the date of this order. Petitioners may file an informal reply within 10 days of the date of the filing of any opposition. No fee is required for the response requested by this court. The parties' briefing should address the following questions: (1) were petitioners' claims of retaliation subject to the requirements of Labor Code section 2699.3, subdivision (a), or Labor Code section 2699.3, subdivision (b) (Lab. Code, 2699.5, 63 10); and (2) did respondent court err in striking the following language from the second amended complaint: (a) paragraph seven, item 15, "Retaliation for reporting a hazardous condition," and (b) paragraph 43, item (m), "Violation of Labor Code 6310 for retaliation for complaining about occupational safety hazards."

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2022
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Amended exhibits with correct pagination and bookmarks. 1 volume, pages 1-612.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/05/2022
  • DocketDescription: Amended petition filed.; Notes: Filed by petitioner.Table of contents and bookmarks were added.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/04/2022
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: 1 vol of exhibits. PP.(609) Actual PP.(612)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/04/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: filed by petitioners Maldonado JR., et al

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ALUMINUM PRECISION PRODUCTS is a litigant

Latest cases where The Superior Court of Orange County is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BERKOWITZ PAUL