On April 03, 2019 a
Judgment
was filed
involving a dispute between
Xxxxx Xxxxxxx,
and
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.,
for Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 72
19STCV11518 September 20, 2021
xxxxxxx xxxxx vs KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH 8:30 AM
PLAN, INC.
Judge: Honorable Curtis A. Kin CSR: Mary K. Medley, CSR # 9557 (via LA
CourtConnect - Telephonic)
Judicial Assistant: N. Marshalian ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: A. Wiggins Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Patricio T.D. Barrera
For Defendant(s): Janine S. Simerly appearing for Michele Ballard Miller
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Final Status Conference
Pursuant to Government Code sections 68086, 70044, California Rules of Court, rule 2.956, and
the stipulation of appearing parties, Mary K. Medley, CSR # 9557 , certified shorthand reporter
is appointed as an official Court reporter pro tempore in these proceedings, and is ordered to
comply with the terms of the Court Reporter Agreement. The Order is signed and filed this date.
The certified shorthand reporter transcribes the hearing remotely via LA CourtConnect
Telephonic appearance.
The matter is called for hearing.
The Court and counsel confer regarding the status of the case in preparation for Trial.
Both sides announce ready for Trial but are willing to participate in mediation if available.
The Court informs counsel a mini opening will be permitted but is limited to five minutes per
side. The Court also informs counsel that [Proposed] Jury Instructions, Verdict Forms and Jury
Questionnaire is to be filed no later than 09/29/2021.
The Court addresses Motions in Limine and counsel make oral argument.
Plaintiff's Motion in Limine number two and Defendant's Motions in Limine number four and
seven are DENIED.
Defendant's Motion in Limine number one and two are GRANTED without prejudice as to
Plaintiff making a showing as to admissibility of specific Me Too evidence.
Minute Order Page 1 of 2
Document Filed Date
September 20, 2021
Case Filing Date
April 03, 2019
Category
Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 11/15/2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 72 19STCV11518 September 20, 2021 xxxxxxx xxxxx vs KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH 8:30 AM PLAN, INC. Judge: Honorable Curtis A. Kin CSR: Mary K. Medley, CSR # 9557 (via LA CourtConnect - Telephonic) Judicial Assistant: N. Marshalian ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: A. Wiggins Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Patricio T.D. Barrera For Defendant(s): Janine S. Simerly appearing for Michele Ballard Miller NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Final Status Conference Pursuant to Government Code sections 68086, 70044, California Rules of Court, rule 2.956, and the stipulation of appearing parties, Mary K. Medley, CSR # 9557 , certified shorthand reporter is appointed as an official Court reporter pro tempore in these proceedings, and is ordered to comply with the terms of the Court Reporter Agreement. The Order is signed and filed this date. The certified shorthand reporter transcribes the hearing remotely via LA CourtConnect Telephonic appearance. The matter is called for hearing. The Court and counsel confer regarding the status of the case in preparation for Trial. Both sides announce ready for Trial but are willing to participate in mediation if available. The Court informs counsel a mini opening will be permitted but is limited to five minutes per side. The Court also informs counsel that [Proposed] Jury Instructions, Verdict Forms and Jury Questionnaire is to be filed no later than 09/29/2021. The Court addresses Motions in Limine and counsel make oral argument. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine number two and Defendant's Motions in Limine number four and seven are DENIED. Defendant's Motion in Limine number one and two are GRANTED without prejudice as to Plaintiff making a showing as to admissibility of specific Me Too evidence. Minute Order Page 1 of 2