Failure to Prevent Disability Discrimination in California

Discovery should shed light on whether and to what extent Goodwill has training procedures to prevent disability discrimination. For purposes of pleading notice and sufficiency as against a general demurrer, the seventh cause of action is factually specific enough to state a cause of action for failure to prevent disability discrimination. Goodwill shall serve and file its answer to the second amended complaint by no later than May 22, 2018.

Here, the Court finds the Plaintiff has shown “good cause” to request a further response to the Interrogatory with regard to claims made regarding disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to prevent disability discrimination.

On March 11, 2010, plaintiff filed suit against the County for disability discrimination, failure to prevent disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable accommodations in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as codified in Government Code section 12940, subdivisions (a), (k), and (m). Plaintiff claims to have suffered lost earnings in excess of $40,000 as a result of his wrongful termination, as well as general damages.

It alleges wrongful termination based on disability discrimination, and failure to prevent disability discrimination. Defendant answered in December, 2020. ROA 32. The case is set for trial in January 2022. ROA 36-41. Presently, defendant moves to compel responses to a document demand, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. ROA 42-53. Modest sanctions are also sought. There is no opposition. 2. Applicable Standards. A. A civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. Williams v.

Similarly, "any doubts as to the propriety of granting a summary judgment motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion." Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 535. Plaintiff Patrick Preston asserts causes of action for: (1) wrongful termination – physical disability discrimination; (2) failure to prevent disability discrimination; (3) violation of Labor Code § 1050; (4) interference with prospective economic advantage; and (5) interference with contractual relations.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) pregnancy discrimination; (2) failure to prevent pregnancy discrimination; (3) disability discrimination; (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination; (5) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (6) failure to engage in good faith interactive process; (7) retaliation; (8) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (9) misclassification as independent contractor.

Fifth Cause of Action: With regard to Plaintiff's fifth cause of action, Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether failure to prevent retaliation in violation of FEHA occurred, based on the same grounds as Plaintiff's fourth cause of action. However, because there is no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff's claim for disability discrimination, then there can be no triable issue as to failure to prevent disability discrimination. Trujillo v.

BACKGROUND On May 4, 2018, Plaintiff Claudia Hernandez, filed a Complaint against Defendants Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Inc., Goodwill Southern California, Goodwill, and Does 1-100, stating claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent disability discrimination and retaliation, violation of CFRA, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Disability Harassment in Violation of FEHA, (2) Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (3) Failure to Prevent Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, (4) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, (5) CFRA Interference, (6) Retaliation in Violation of CFRA, (7) Failure to Accommodate, (8) Failure to Engage in the Good Faith Interactive Process, and (9) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

The MSA as to this cause of action is therefore denied. 6th-10th COAs: Failure to Accommodate Disability; Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (8) Failure to Take Steps Necessary to Prevent Disability Discrimination; Retaliation for Opposing Disability Discrimination; Failure to Take Steps Necessary to Prevent Retaliation Defendants rest their motion with regard to these causes of action on the false premise of the failure of the 5th COA.

Plaintiffs fourth cause of action for failure to prevent disability discrimination alleges that the District failed to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability. (FAC, ¶ 58.)

provide personnel records; 12) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 6310; 13) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; 14) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; 15) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA; 16) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA; 17) disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; 18) failure to prevent disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA; 19) retaliation in violation of the FEHA

Failure to Prevent Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, 3. Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA, 4. Failure to Engage in the Good Faith Interactive Process, 5. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, 6. Retaliation for Use of Sick Leave, 7. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 98.6, 8. Retaliation in Violation of CFRA, 9. Violation of California Labor Code § 6409.6, 10. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

process, (3) disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, (5) retaliation, (6) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) and California Family Rights Act (the “CFRA”), and (7) wrongful termination.

On July 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserting causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to engage in a good faith, timely interactive process, (3) failure to accommodate, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, and (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA. On March 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting the name of Los Angeles Community College District for the incorrect name Los Angeles Community Colleges.

Case Number: 19STCV23456 Hearing Date: June 14, 2023 Dept: 24 Background On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff Carlos Gonzalez (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to engage in the interactive process, (3) failure to accommodate a disability, (4) retaliation under the FEHA, (5) failure to prevent disability discrimination/retaliation, (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and (7) waiting time penalties against

The Complaint alleges causes of action for: 1) Disability discrimination; 2) Disability harassment; 3) Failure to engage in the interactive process; 4) Failure to accommodate disability; 5) Retaliation (Govt Code § 12940); 6) Retaliation (Labor Code § 1102.5); 7) Retaliation (Labor Code § 6310); 8) Failure to prevent disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; 9) Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention;

Failure to Engage in Interactive Process 5. Failure to Take Reasonable Steps to Prevent Disability Discrimination 6. Retaliation 7. Failure to Provide Meal Periods 8. Failure to Provide Rest Periods 9. Non-Payment of Overtime Wages 10. Non-Payment of Wages When Due Johnny’s filed its Answer on July 15, 2015. The case is now set for trial on May 30, 2017.

In addition, plaintiff has alleged that: “Defendant had in place policies and procedures that specifically prohibited discrimination based on a disability and [that] required Defendant’s managers, officers, and agents to prevent disability discrimination.

Issue 4: Failure to Prevent Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA The fifth cause of action is for failure to provide an environment free from discrimination and retaliation under Government Code section 12940. (Gov’t Code, § 12940, subd. (k).)

ISSUE NO. 5: “Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination is without merit, because Defendant ACP did not fail to prevent discrimination of Plaintiff HRISTOVA. Plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim for failure to prevent disability discrimination because plaintiff has not and cannot set forth any evidence that she was discriminated against.”

Given that the disability discrimination claim survives, the inference is that Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent disability discrimination resulting in Plaintiffs termination. The detailsand evidence which is presumptively in Defendants possessioncan be ascertained through discovery. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is OVERRULED. 5. Fifth Cause of Action (Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity). A.

She alleges disability discrimination as well as failure to prevent disability discrimination and wrongful termination under one cause of action. Each separate violation should be alleged as its own cause of action with specific facts to support each cause of action. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.112.) Discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination are three separate causes of action.

Defendant's motion is granted as to Plaintiff's second and third causes of action. Plaintiff's fourth cause of action is for failure to prevent disability discrimination. Such claim fails because it is dependent on a finding of discrimination or harassment and, as discussed above, Plaintiff fails to establish discrimination or harassment. (See Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 286.) Defendant's motion is granted as to Plaintiff's fourth cause of action.

MIL #4: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT OR REFERENCE TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF AFTER THE LAST ALLEGED INCIDENT OF ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION: The Court requires further discussion on the record prior to ruling. Plaintiff claims disability discrimination and the failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent disability discrimination.

On July 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to engage in a good faith, timely interactive process, (3) failure to accommodate, (4) failure to prevent disability discrimination, and (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA. On March 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting the name of Los Angeles Community College District for the incorrect name Los Angeles Community Colleges.

BACKGROUND On May 4, 2018, Plaintiff Claudia Hernandez, filed a Complaint against Defendants Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Inc., Goodwill Southern California, Goodwill, and Does 1-100, stating claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent disability discrimination and retaliation, violation of CFRA, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

In addition, Defendant had in place policies and procedures that specifically prohibited discrimination based on a disability and required Defendant’s managers, officers, and agents to prevent disability discrimination.

Moreover, in the moving separate statement, Defendant does not cite any evidence whereby it took all reasonable steps to prevent disability discrimination in the refusal to hire Plaintiff for any of the 56 available positions for which she applied. As such, moving Defendant has not met its initial burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to judgment on this cause of action. The burden does not shift to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact.

The complaint in Gomez alleges "PAGA and INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS" against Vortex for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide and maintain compliant wage statements, failure to pay wages upon termination as well as a PAGA claim for failure to maintain records and an individual claim for unfair competition.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 6/20/16 against defendants for: (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) retaliation; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation; (7) failure to pay minimum wage; (8) failure to pay overtime; (9) failure to pay wages due; (10) failure to provide meal periods; (11) failure to provide rest periods; (12) failure to reimburse expenses; (13) failure

Monson of $500 for failure to appear 10-31-2023, $500 for failure to file accounting, and $500 for failure to turnover trust documents.

On April 30, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Manuel Alday, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, commenced this action against Defendant Fantasy Dyeing & Fishing, Inc. for (1) failure to pay minimum and regular rate wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5) failure to timely pay final wages at termination; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (7) unfair business practices.

Need appearance by Michael Monson to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failure to appear 4-24-2023 and 7-25-2023, failure to comply with the court’s order to turn over assets, failure to account, and failure to turn over bank statements, pursuant to 7-25-2023 minute order. The Court will consider sanctions of up to $1,500.00, pursuant to CCP § 177.5. Notes: 1.

Failure to pay overtime wages 2. Failure to authorize meal periods 3. Failure to authorize or permit rest periods 4. Failure to pay all vacation/PTO wages 5. Failure to indemnify for losses and expenditures 6. Failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements 7. Failure to pay all wages upon separation of employment 8. Unfair business practices 9. Failure to provide employment records upon request 10.

Failure to pay overtime wages 2. Failure to authorize meal periods 3. Failure to authorize or permit rest periods 4. Failure to pay all vacation/PTO wages 5. Failure to indemnify for losses and expenditures 6. Failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements 7. Failure to pay all wages upon separation of employment 8. Unfair business practices 9. Failure to provide employment records upon request 10.

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint The Demurrer by Defendants Samuel Alexander Escobar dba Lionsgate Construction and Argonaut Insurance Company to the Complaint’s First Cause of Action for failure to state a claim, for uncertainty, and for failure to allege whether contact is oral or written or implied by conduct; to the Complaint’s Second Cause of Action for failure to state a claim, for uncertainty, for failure to allege

Plaintiff is ordered to appear at that time and show cause why the entire action should not be dismissed for its failure to comply with court rules and the prior orders of this court, to wit: failure and refusal to serve the summons and complaint on the defendant; failure to file a proof of service as ordered by the court; failure to secure the answer of the defendant or take his default; failure to file a compliance statement; failure to file a case management statement on February 21, 2008; improperly appearing

failure to permit records inspection; and (8) failure to provide wage theft notices.

Plaintiff's PAGA claim alleges "Defendants' failure to provide duty-free meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse employee expenses, failure to pay overtime, failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions, failure to pay wages owed, and failure to pay all wages due upon termination entitle Plaintiff to recover civil penalties as aggrieved an employee on behalf of himself and other current and former similarly situated employees of Defendants,

to pay earned wages; (11) waiting time penalties; (12) failure to provide rest periods; (13) failure to provide meal periods; (14) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (15) unfair competition; (16) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (17) failure to render aid.

to pay earned wages; (11) waiting time penalties; (12) failure to provide rest periods; (13) failure to provide meal periods; (14) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (15) unfair competition; (16) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (17) failure to render aid.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal is granted. According to the moving papers, Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive notice of the 10/11/17 CMC or the 3/16/18 OSC re: Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to Appear at the CMC, failure to file a CMC statement, failure to serve the Defendant, failure to prosecute, and, as a result, did not calendar either date.

Plaintiff is ordered to appear at that time and show cause why the entire action should not be dismissed due to his failure to comply with court rules and prior orders of this court, to wit: failure to file a case managment statement; failure to file a compliance statement; failure to serve the summons and complaint; failure to file a certificate of service; and failure to pay sanctions as ordered by the court.

Plaintiff is ordered to appear at that time and show cause why the entire action should not be dismissed due to his failure to comply with court rules and prior orders of this court, to wit: failure to file a case managment statement; failure to file a compliance statement; failure to serve the summons and complaint; failure to file a certificate of service; and failure to pay sanctions as ordered by the court.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (4) Failure to Provide Itemized Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; (6) Willful Misclassification; (7) Failure to Pay all Wages; (8) Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll Records; (9) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due at Termination; and (10) Unlawful Business Practices. The Labor Code applies to employers.

At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.

At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.

At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.

At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.

At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.

At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.

At the last hearing on August 1, 2022, the Court imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,000 for failure to appear on April 25, 2022, failure to file a Status Report, and failure to provide proof that guardianship has been established in Oregon. The Court has received the Annual Status Report filed on August 30, 2022.

.: 19STCV22048 Hearing Date: January 5, 2021 On 6/24/20219, Plaintiff Soontorn Lauharatanahirun (Plaintiff) filed suit against the Crispy Pork Gang and Manat Thawimueanla, alleging: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wage; (4) failure to pay overtime; (5) failure to pay all wages; (6) failure to pay waiting time penalties; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (8) unfair business

Ferreira seeks to recover on claims of (i) failure to pay minimum wages; (ii) failure to pay overtime; (iii) failure to provide meal periods; (iv) failure to provide rest breaks; (v) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (vi) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; (vii) unfair competition; and (viii) penalties under PAGA.

On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant and Does 1-100, alleging (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods or compensation of lieu of; (5) failure to provide paid rest periods; (6) failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) violations of Labor Code section 203; and (8) unfair business practices.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGEMENT BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs commenced this action 09/20/17 against defendant for: (1) failure to pay wage; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; (5) failure to pay wages due upon termination: waiting time; and (6) unfair business practices.

to Pay Earned Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Provide Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses in Violation of Labor Code § 2802; Unfair competition; Violation of California Labor Code § 226.

Vazquez for (1) failure to pay earned wages and overtime compensation; (2) failure to indemnify/reimburse expenses to employee; (3) failure to provide rest breaks; (4) failure to provide meal breaks; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized statements; (6) failure to pay all wages due at end of employment; (7) waiting time penalties; (8) failure to maintain payroll records; (9) failure to produce employee file; and (10) unfair business practices.

Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.

Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.

Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.

Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.

Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.

Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.

Case Number: 22CV-0199509 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on February 23, 2023 to Plaintiff for failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on January 9, 2023 and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC. With no sufficient excuse for the failure to appear and the failure to prosecute this case, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff’s complaint pleads the following Causes of Action against all Defendants: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Pay Wages upon Termination; and [Violation of] Unlawful Business Practices Act.

action and for uncertainty, (10) the Ninth Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages for Failure to state a cause of action and for uncertainty, amd (11) the Tenth Cause of Action for Retaliation for Failure to state a cause of action and for uncertainty are all SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

STATEMENT OF CASE This is an employment action for failure to pay wages and provide breaks. Plaintiff Adriana Guerrero filed a lawsuit against Defendant MSA Trucking, LLC, alleging failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to reimburse work related expenses, failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements, and unlawful/unfair business practice.

LABOR CODE § 204, 510, 1194 (9) FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 1194, 1194.2 (10) FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226.7, 512 (11) FAILURE TO PROVIDE REST PERIODS IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 226.7 (12) FAILURE TO FURNISH TIMELY AND ACCURATE ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS (13) FAILURE TO PROVIDE FINAL WAGES AT SEPARATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE § 201, 203 (14) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §17200.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Case Number: CVG21-0001476 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions (hereinafter “OSC”) issued on November 9, 2022 to Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC and Counsel Adrenah Minassian for failure timely serve the complaint, failure to timely enter default, and failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on October 3, 2022.

Partially granted pursuant to order filed 7-29-21. E. Per 11-8-2022 minute order, court issued an Order to Show Cause against Julie Evans for failure to appear 11-8-2022, and failure to file and serve an accounting, pursuant to 8-9-2022 minute order. F.

Since the proceedings under CCP § 1822 had been completed, counsel failed to appear at the October 24, 2023 hearing. As a result, the Court issued its Order sanctioning counsel $250 for failure to appear, failure to file proof of service and failure to prosecute. Counsel for Petitioner now seeks relief from the October 24, 2023 Order that he pay $250 as a sanction.

Order to Show Cause for Failure to Appear and Failure to Submit Confidential Guardianship Status Report.

Order to Show Cause for Failure to Appear and Failure to Submit Confidential Guardianship Status Report.

Order to Show Cause for Failure to Appear and Failure to Submit Confidential Guardianship Status Report.

Order to Show Cause for Failure to Appear and Failure to Submit Confidential Guardianship Status Report.

OSC Re: Sanctions for Failure to Appear 5.

This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination case by Plaintiff Charles Cyr in which he alleges 13 causes of action against Defendant Eisenhower Medical Center as follows: 1) age discrimination, 2) gender discrimination, 3) failure to pay overtime wages, 4) failure to pay final wages, 5) failure to provide meal periods, 6) failure to provide rest periods, 7) failure to pay wages when due, 8) IIED, 9) wrongful termination, 10) breach of contract, 11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith

This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination case by Plaintiff Charles Cyr in which he alleges 13 causes of action against Defendant Eisenhower Medical Center as follows: 1) age discrimination, 2) gender discrimination, 3) failure to pay overtime wages, 4) failure to pay final wages, 5) failure to provide meal periods, 6) failure to provide rest periods, 7) failure to pay wages when due, 8) IIED, 9) wrongful termination, 10) breach of contract, 11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith