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.
*****9403
01/24/2013
Disposed - Dismissed
San Mateo County Superior Courts
Southern Branch Hall Of Justice And Records
San Mateo, California
Dylina, Steven L
Dylina, Steven L.
EUGENE CHOE
CHOE, EUGENE
LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
PERDUE, VALERIE R
MCINERNEY, THOMAS M
BREWER, MICHAEL E.
DISMISSAL Comment REQDEA: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FILED AND ENTERED.
NOTICE (2) Comment PNTWO: PRINT COMBINED MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL OR COURT TRIAL NOTICE
STIPULATION Comment SO2: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE SIGNED BY ROBERT D. FOILES ON 10/18/13.
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.
NOTICE Comment PNTWO: PRINT COMBINED MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL OR COURT TRIAL NOTICE
CMC NOTICE Judicial Officer Dylina Steven L Comment CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT (2) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION.
STATEMENT Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY EUGENE CHOE.
ORDER Comment O: ORDER RE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SIGNED BY BF ON 05/03/13, FILED.
ANSWER Comment ANS: (S) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF CHOE FILED BY LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THOMAS M MCINERNEY
COVERSHEET Comment CCS: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED
SUMMONS Comment S30IF: 30 DAY SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED.
COMPLAINT Comment COM: (S) COMPLAINT FILED
Disposition: Judgment; Judgment Type; Dismissal - Other Dismissal; Party; Name: LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT; Party; Name: CHOE EUGENE; Comment: 0001 COMPLAINT.
Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment JURY TRIAL. TIME ESTIMATE: 10 DAYS 00:00 HOURS.
Jury Trial. Additional Info: Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: PJ JURY TRIAL. TIME ESTIMATE: 10 DAYS 00:00 HOURS.
Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Settlement Conference. Additional Info: Hearing Time 09:30 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: 7 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment COM: PER JOINT STIPULATION & ORD. FILED 10/23/13.
Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 04/14/14 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT PJ.
Conversion Hearing. Additional Info: Comment JURY TRIAL. TIME ESTIMATE: 10 DAYS 00:00 HOURS.
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.
Conversion Minute. Additional Info: Comment COM: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FILED ON 10/23/13.
Financial info for LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION : Case Payment Receipt # 201305060174 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION $20.00
Financial info for LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION : Transaction Assessment $20.00
Financial info for LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION : Case Payment Receipt # 201302140682 LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION $435.00
Financial info for LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION : Transaction Assessment $435.00
Financial: LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Total Financial Assessment $455.00; Total Payments and Credits $455.00
Financial info for CHOE, EUGENE : Case Payment Receipt # 201305280239 CHOE, EUGENE $150.00
Financial info for CHOE, EUGENE : Transaction Assessment $150.00
Financial info for CHOE, EUGENE : Case Payment Receipt # 201301240867 CHOE, EUGENE $435.00
Financial info for CHOE, EUGENE : Transaction Assessment $435.00
Financial: CHOE, EUGENE; Total Financial Assessment $585.00; Total Payments and Credits $585.00
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
EUGENE CHOE, Case No. CIV 519403
Plaintiff,
Vvs. , CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO
LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Action Filed: January 24, 2013
Defendant.
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:
1. As a separate and affirmative defense, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
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.
3. As a separate and affirmative defense, plaintiff has failed to properly mitigate his damages, if any.
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.
5. As a separate and affirmative defense, certain of plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
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
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
14328991.1 (OGLETREE)
2 Case No. CIV 519403