Preview
1JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. FILED/ENDORSED
2
1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite # 450
3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 MAY 1 9 2022
Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868
4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com By: F Mar.donald.
DeOiitV Clerk
5
ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246)
6 LIBERTY MAN LAW
1010 F Street, Ste. 300
7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814
Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787
8
Email: libertymanlaw@gmail.com
9
Attomeys for Plaintiff
10 SAJIDA ZAMAN
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
15 Plainfiff, PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX-
VS.
16 PARTE APPLICATION TO
SPECIALLY SET HEARING DATE ON
17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES JUDGMENT/SUMMARY
18
1 through 20, inclusive, ADJUDICATION
19
Defendants. ACTION FILED: March 8, 2019
20 TRIAL DATE: September 12, 2022
21
22 I. INTRODUCTION
23 Defendant Liqui-Box Corp. ("Defendant") seeks to have the Court treat its lack of diligence
24 in filing a Mofion for Summary Judgement/Adjudicafion ("MSJ") as an "emergency situafion.'
25 However, after 3 years of litigafion. Defendant has yet to serve a single discovery request or take
26 a single deposition in this case. Nevertheless, Defendant and its counsel msh to Court in the fina
27 hour, just a few months before trial, to seek a shortened date to file its alleged MSJ without gooc
28 cause. Defendant's ex-parte relief should be denied.
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION
1 of 4
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2
On March 8, 2019, Plainfiff filed her original Complaint, alleging causes of acfion for (L
3
wrongful terminafion in violation of public policy, (2) retaliafion in violation of public policy, (3]
4
disability discrimination in violafion of FEHA, (4) failure to engage in the interactive process ir
5
violafion of FEHA; (5) failure to provide a reasonable accommodafion in violafion of FEHA; anc
6
(6) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED").
7
On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC) alleging
8
amongst other things, that Liqui-Box's terminafion of Plaintiff for violafing the CSB policy itseli'
9
violates the UCL because the CSB policy facially violates Califomia Occupafional Safety Hazards
10
Act ("CalOSHA") regulations 8 CCR §§ 14300.35-14300.36
11
Over the course of this litigation, Plaintiff conducted several rounds of written discovery
12
including but not limited to, (1) Form Interrogatories—General, Set One, (2) Fom
13
Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set One, (3) Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, (4
14
Requests for Producfion of Documents, Sets One, Two, and Three. Plainfiff has also conductec
15
the deposifion of Defendant' Person Most Knowledgeable and is currently scheduled to conduci
16
further third-party depositions and propound further written discovery.
17
To date. Defendant has not propounded any written discovery, and has not taken the
18
deposition of Plaintiff.
19
After more than 3 years, on May 9, 2022, Defendant sought to reserve a date for its Motior
20
for Summary Judgement/Adjudication without conducting any discovery and without good cause
21
To date. Defendant has not even actually drafted its MSJ, and needs unfil at least May 27, 2022 tc
22
do so.
23
III. DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL'S EFFORTS WERE FAR FROM
24
"DILIGENT."
25
Defendant nefariously argues that despite its "diligent efforts" it has been unable to secure
26
a hearing on its mofion for summary judgment. However, the tmth is that Defendant has been idle
27
in its efforts to lifigate this case. Indeed, Defendant has not propounded a single written discover)
28
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION
2 of 4
request or even taken a single deposifion of Plainfiff. Even if Defendant argues that it need no
2
rely on PlainfifPs discovery requests or deposifion testimony, the quesfion remains: Why die
3
Defendant wait unfil May 9, 2022, to file its MSJ, when this case has been pending since Marcl
4
8, 2019?
5
To date. Defendant has sfill not drafted its MSJ, but states that it requires until May 27
6
2022 to prepare its alleged MSJ. Clearly, Defendant and its counsel have lacked due diligence anc
7
has not beenfimelyinfilingor reserving a hearing date on its proposed MSJ. Defendant's proposec
8
MSJ will be a waste of the Court's resources because it will only be supported by self-servinj
9
declarations, without regard to any neutral evidence from Plaintiff or third parties. In the interests
10
of judicial efficiency. Defendant's last-ditch effort to obtain a shortened notice period to file an
11
unsupported and tenable MSJ should be denied.
12
IV. PLAINTIFF WILL BE PREJUDICED IF THE EX-PARTE RELIEF ISl
13
GRANTED.
14
Plaintiff is currently engaged in extensive lifigafion aimed at proving her claims at trial
15
After completing the deposifion of Defendant's Person most Qualified, Plaintiff has recenfij
16
noficed the deposifion of Angela Beard, a former employee and key witness, and other witnesses
17
Plaintiff also intends on taking additional depositions of Defendant's managers and supervisors
18
and employees. Plainfiff is also simultaneously engaged in trial preparafion. In this context, anc
19
on the eve of the trial date. Defendant seeks to file its MSJ to impede Plaintiff from preparing hei
20
case for trial. Requiring Plainfiff to oppose Defendant's tardy MSJ, will prevent Plainfiff fron
21
conducfing the discovery and trial preparation required.
22
V. IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO GRANT RELIEF. PLAINTIFF
23
REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE AND RELATEE
24
DEADLINES.
25
If the Court is inclined to permit Defendant to file its MSJ, Plaintiff requests that the Cour
26
confinue the September 12, 2022, trial date and related deadlines by at least 90 days. This wouk
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION
3 of 4
permit Plainfiff the opportunity to continue and finish its discovery/depositions, and the fime
2
required to prepare and file an Opposifion to Defendant's proposed MSJ.
3
4
Dated: May 18, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,
5
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
6 LIBERTY MAN LAW
7
8
Joshua S. Falakassa
9 Arash S. Khosrowshahi
10 Attomeys for Plainfiff Sajida Zaman
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION
4 of 4
RFJCEIVED
L AW AND MOTION DROP BOX
mnm 19 AH 9:50
GDSSC, CCURTMO'^S-:
SlIPERICK I X J W . •
OF CALIFQr.r-'IIA
SACRAMEriTO CnilNTv
Preview
1JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. FILED/ENDORSED 2 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite # 450 3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 MAY 1 9 2022 Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com By: F Mar.donald. DeOiitV Clerk 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) 6 LIBERTY MAN LAW 1010 F Street, Ste. 300 7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787 8 Email: libertymanlaw@gmail.com 9 Attomeys for Plaintiff 10 SAJIDA ZAMAN 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121 15 Plainfiff, PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX- VS. 16 PARTE APPLICATION TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING DATE ON 17 MOTION FOR SUMMARY LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES JUDGMENT/SUMMARY 18 1 through 20, inclusive, ADJUDICATION 19 Defendants. ACTION FILED: March 8, 2019 20 TRIAL DATE: September 12, 2022 21 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 Defendant Liqui-Box Corp. ("Defendant") seeks to have the Court treat its lack of diligence 24 in filing a Mofion for Summary Judgement/Adjudicafion ("MSJ") as an "emergency situafion.' 25 However, after 3 years of litigafion. Defendant has yet to serve a single discovery request or take 26 a single deposition in this case. Nevertheless, Defendant and its counsel msh to Court in the fina 27 hour, just a few months before trial, to seek a shortened date to file its alleged MSJ without gooc 28 cause. Defendant's ex-parte relief should be denied. PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION 1 of 4 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 On March 8, 2019, Plainfiff filed her original Complaint, alleging causes of acfion for (L 3 wrongful terminafion in violation of public policy, (2) retaliafion in violation of public policy, (3] 4 disability discrimination in violafion of FEHA, (4) failure to engage in the interactive process ir 5 violafion of FEHA; (5) failure to provide a reasonable accommodafion in violafion of FEHA; anc 6 (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"). 7 On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC) alleging 8 amongst other things, that Liqui-Box's terminafion of Plaintiff for violafing the CSB policy itseli' 9 violates the UCL because the CSB policy facially violates Califomia Occupafional Safety Hazards 10 Act ("CalOSHA") regulations 8 CCR §§ 14300.35-14300.36 11 Over the course of this litigation, Plaintiff conducted several rounds of written discovery 12 including but not limited to, (1) Form Interrogatories—General, Set One, (2) Fom 13 Interrogatories—Employment Law, Set One, (3) Special Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, (4 14 Requests for Producfion of Documents, Sets One, Two, and Three. Plainfiff has also conductec 15 the deposifion of Defendant' Person Most Knowledgeable and is currently scheduled to conduci 16 further third-party depositions and propound further written discovery. 17 To date. Defendant has not propounded any written discovery, and has not taken the 18 deposition of Plaintiff. 19 After more than 3 years, on May 9, 2022, Defendant sought to reserve a date for its Motior 20 for Summary Judgement/Adjudication without conducting any discovery and without good cause 21 To date. Defendant has not even actually drafted its MSJ, and needs unfil at least May 27, 2022 tc 22 do so. 23 III. DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL'S EFFORTS WERE FAR FROM 24 "DILIGENT." 25 Defendant nefariously argues that despite its "diligent efforts" it has been unable to secure 26 a hearing on its mofion for summary judgment. However, the tmth is that Defendant has been idle 27 in its efforts to lifigate this case. Indeed, Defendant has not propounded a single written discover) 28 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION 2 of 4 request or even taken a single deposifion of Plainfiff. Even if Defendant argues that it need no 2 rely on PlainfifPs discovery requests or deposifion testimony, the quesfion remains: Why die 3 Defendant wait unfil May 9, 2022, to file its MSJ, when this case has been pending since Marcl 4 8, 2019? 5 To date. Defendant has sfill not drafted its MSJ, but states that it requires until May 27 6 2022 to prepare its alleged MSJ. Clearly, Defendant and its counsel have lacked due diligence anc 7 has not beenfimelyinfilingor reserving a hearing date on its proposed MSJ. Defendant's proposec 8 MSJ will be a waste of the Court's resources because it will only be supported by self-servinj 9 declarations, without regard to any neutral evidence from Plaintiff or third parties. In the interests 10 of judicial efficiency. Defendant's last-ditch effort to obtain a shortened notice period to file an 11 unsupported and tenable MSJ should be denied. 12 IV. PLAINTIFF WILL BE PREJUDICED IF THE EX-PARTE RELIEF ISl 13 GRANTED. 14 Plaintiff is currently engaged in extensive lifigafion aimed at proving her claims at trial 15 After completing the deposifion of Defendant's Person most Qualified, Plaintiff has recenfij 16 noficed the deposifion of Angela Beard, a former employee and key witness, and other witnesses 17 Plaintiff also intends on taking additional depositions of Defendant's managers and supervisors 18 and employees. Plainfiff is also simultaneously engaged in trial preparafion. In this context, anc 19 on the eve of the trial date. Defendant seeks to file its MSJ to impede Plaintiff from preparing hei 20 case for trial. Requiring Plainfiff to oppose Defendant's tardy MSJ, will prevent Plainfiff fron 21 conducfing the discovery and trial preparation required. 22 V. IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO GRANT RELIEF. PLAINTIFF 23 REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE AND RELATEE 24 DEADLINES. 25 If the Court is inclined to permit Defendant to file its MSJ, Plaintiff requests that the Cour 26 confinue the September 12, 2022, trial date and related deadlines by at least 90 days. This wouk 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION 3 of 4 permit Plainfiff the opportunity to continue and finish its discovery/depositions, and the fime 2 required to prepare and file an Opposifion to Defendant's proposed MSJ. 3 4 Dated: May 18, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 5 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 6 LIBERTY MAN LAW 7 8 Joshua S. Falakassa 9 Arash S. Khosrowshahi 10 Attomeys for Plainfiff Sajida Zaman 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION 4 of 4 RFJCEIVED L AW AND MOTION DROP BOX mnm 19 AH 9:50 GDSSC, CCURTMO'^S-: SlIPERICK I X J W . • OF CALIFQr.r-'IIA SACRAMEriTO CnilNTv