On November 14, 2019 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
Iannucci Laureen,
and
Autozone Inc. A Corporation,
Autozoners Llc,
for Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 06/17/2020 02:32 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J. Tang,Deputy Clerk
CM-110
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Lawrance A. Bohm, (SBN: 208716); Bradley J. Mancuso, (SBN: 285616)
Christina R. Kerner, (SBN: 319474); BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
21051 Warner Center Lane, Suite 225, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
TELEPHONE NO.: 866.920.1292 FAX NO. (Optional): 916.927.2046
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): brad@bohmlaw.com; red@bohmlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff, LAUREEN IANNUCCI
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
STREET ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street
MAILING ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street
CITY AND ZIP CODE: Los Angeles, 90012
BRANCH NAME: STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: LAUREEN IANNUCCI
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: AUTOZONE, INC.
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER:
(Check one): UNLIMITED CASE LIMITED CASE 19STCV41003
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000
exceeds $25,000) or less)
A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows:
Date: July 2, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 19 Div.: Room:
Address of court (if different from the address above):
Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone, by (name): Bradley J. Mancuso, Esq.
INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, and the specified information must be provided.
1. Party or parties (answer one):
a. This statement is submitted by party (name): Plaintiff, LAUREEN IANNUCCI
b. This statement is submitted jointly by parties (names):
2. Complaint and cross-complaint (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only)
a. The complaint was filed on (date): November 14, 2019
b. The cross-complaint, if any, was filed on (date):
3. Service (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only)
a. All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served, have appeared, or have been dismissed.
b. The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint
(1) have not been served (specify names and explain why not):
(2) have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specify names):
(3) have had a default entered against them (specify names):
c. The following additional parties may be added (specify names, nature of involvement in case, and date by which
they may be served):
4. Description of case
a. Type of case in complaint cross-complaint (Describe, including causes of action):
Harassment; Discrimination; FEHA Retaliation; Failure to Prevent; Labor Code 1102.5; LC 6310; Adverse
Action In Violation of Public Policty; Intentional Misrepresentation; False Promise; Negligent Misrepresentation
Page 1 of 5
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Cal. Rules of Court,
Judicial Council of California rules 3.720–3.730
CM-110 [Rev. July 1, 2011] www.courts.ca.gov
Document Filed Date
June 17, 2020
Case Filing Date
November 14, 2019
Category
Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 09/29/2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.