This case was last updated from San Mateo County Superior Courts on 07/20/2018 at 19:02:07 (UTC).

EUGENE CHOE VS LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP

Case Summary

On 01/24/2013 EUGENE CHOE filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP. This case was filed in San Mateo County Superior Courts, Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records located in San Mateo, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Dylina, Steven L and Dylina, Steven L.. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *****9403

  • Filing Date:

    01/24/2013

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    San Mateo County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records

  • County, State:

    San Mateo, California

Judge Details

Judges

Dylina, Steven L

Dylina, Steven L.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

EUGENE CHOE

CHOE, EUGENE

Defendant

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

PERDUE, VALERIE R

Defendant Attorneys

MCINERNEY, THOMAS M

BREWER, MICHAEL E.

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal of - WITH prejudice in its entirety.

DISMISSAL Comment REQDEA: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FILED AND ENTERED.

Conversion Action.

NOTICE (2) Comment PNTWO: PRINT COMBINED MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL OR COURT TRIAL NOTICE

Conversion Action.

STIPULATION Comment SO2: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE SIGNED BY ROBERT D. FOILES ON 10/18/13.

Substitution of Attorney as to.

ATTORNEY Comment SAT: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FILED. FORMER ATTORNEY THOMAS M MCINERNEY REMOVED AS TO LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION AND REPLACED WITH ATTORNEY MICHAEL E. BREWER.

Conversion Action.

NOTICE Comment PNTWO: PRINT COMBINED MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL OR COURT TRIAL NOTICE

Conversion Hearing.

CMC NOTICE Judicial Officer Dylina Steven L Comment CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (2) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY EUGENE CHOE.

Order.

ORDER Comment O: ORDER RE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SIGNED BY BF ON 05/03/13, FILED.

Answer / Response / Denial - Unlimited.

ANSWER Comment ANS: (S) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF CHOE FILED BY LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THOMAS M MCINERNEY

Civil Case Cover Sheet.

COVERSHEET Comment CCS: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED

Summons Issued / Filed.

SUMMONS Comment S30IF: 30 DAY SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED.

Complaint.

COMPLAINT Comment COM: (S) COMPLAINT FILED

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/17/2014
  • Disposition: Judgment; Judgment Type; Dismissal - Other Dismissal; Party; Name: LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT; Party; Name: CHOE EUGENE; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2014
  • Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment JURY TRIAL. TIME ESTIMATE: 10 DAYS 00:00 HOURS.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2014
  • Jury Trial. Additional Info: Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: PJ JURY TRIAL. TIME ESTIMATE: 10 DAYS 00:00 HOURS.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2014
  • Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2014
  • Settlement Conference. Additional Info: Hearing Time 09:30 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: 7 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment COM: PER JOINT STIPULATION & ORD. FILED 10/23/13.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 04/14/14 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT PJ.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2014
  • Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment JURY TRIAL. TIME ESTIMATE: 10 DAYS 00:00 HOURS.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2014
  • Jury Trial. Additional Info: Original Type Jury Trial Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Conversion Continuance Comment Dept: PJ JURY TRIAL. TIME ESTIMATE: 10 DAYS 00:00 HOURS.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2014
  • Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment COM: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FILED ON 10/23/13.

    Read MoreRead Less
37 More Docket Entries
  • 05/06/2013
  • Financial info for LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION : Case Payment Receipt # 201305060174 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2013
  • Financial info for LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION : Transaction Assessment $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2013
  • Financial info for LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION : Case Payment Receipt # 201302140682 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2013
  • Financial info for LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION : Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2013
  • Financial: LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Total Financial Assessment $455.00; Total Payments and Credits $455.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2013
  • Financial info for CHOE, EUGENE : Case Payment Receipt # 201305280239 CHOE, EUGENE $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2013
  • Financial info for CHOE, EUGENE : Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2013
  • Financial info for CHOE, EUGENE : Case Payment Receipt # 201301240867 CHOE, EUGENE $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2013
  • Financial info for CHOE, EUGENE : Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2013
  • Financial: CHOE, EUGENE; Total Financial Assessment $585.00; Total Payments and Credits $585.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

mfls M. M:c{naeiln:y, State Bar No. 162055 ogletreedeakins.com . Lauren M. Cooper, State Bar No. 254580lauren.cooper@ogletreedeakins.com N OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART,P.C. SAN MATEO COU Steuart Tower, Suite 1300 FEB 14 2013 One Market Plaza

San Francisco, CA 94105 eV Telephone: 415.442.4810 § Facsimile: 415.442.4870 §

Attorneys for Defendant

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

EUGENE CHOE, Case No. CIV 519403

Plaintiff,

DEFENDANT LIFE TECHNOLOGIES

Vvs. , CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO

COMPLAINT

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Action Filed: January 24, 2013

Defendant.

Y FAX

Case No. CIV 519403

Case No. CIV 519403 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431 .30(d), defendant Life Technologies Corporation denies each and every alle‘éation contained in piaintifP s unverified complaint, and denies further that plaintiff has been injured in the amount or manner alleged or in any other manner whatsoever; -

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431 .30(d), defendant Life Technologies Corporation denies each and every alle‘éation contained in piaintifP s unverified complaint, and denies further that plaintiff has been injured in the amount or manner alleged or in any other manner whatsoever; -

Additionally, defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses as set forth below:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE |

1. As a separate and affirmative defense, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2. - Asaseparate and affirmative defense, plaintiff’s complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure § § 338 and 340 and California Government Code § § 12960 and 12965.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE |

3. As a separate and affirmative defense, plaintiff has failed to properly mitigate his damages, if any.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4, As a separate and affirmative defense, defendant alleges that, to the extent plaintiff’s alleged disability was not accommodated, plaintiff’s alleged disability could not have been |

accommodated without imposing an undue hardship upon defendant.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5. As a separate and affirmative defense, certain of plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6. As a separate and affirmative defense, plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for any alleged damages is governed by the California Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code §§ 3200 et seq.. i 1

1 Case No. CIV 519403

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7. As a separate affirmative defense, plaintiff’s claims are barred, or in the alternative, plaintiff’s recovery must be limited because plaintiff engaged in conduct which, if known to defendant, would have resulted in termination of plaintiff’s employment.

WHEREFORE, defendant prays as follows: 1 That plaintiff take nothing by this action;

2 That judgment be entered in favor of defendant; 3. For costs of suit and for attorneys’ fees incurred; and 4

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: February 14, 2013 - OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & ' STEWART, P.C.

By: Jflm_@%_ Thomas M. Mclnemey

Lauren M. Cooper

Attorneys for Defendant

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

14328991.1 (OGLETREE)

2 Case No. CIV 519403