On August 15, 2018 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Davenport Gregory,
and
Aggarwal Ektha,
Global Service Resources Inc.,
Kpg Healthcare Llc,
Los Angeles County Of,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/09/2019 05:21 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J. Lara,Deputy Clerk
1 Avi Burkwitz, Esq., Bar No.: 217225 Exempt from Filing Fees
Ryan A. Graham Esq., Bar No.: 310186 Government Code Section 6103
2 PETERSON · BRADFORD · BURKWITZ
100 North First Street, Suite 300
3 Burbank, California 91502
818.562.5800
4
Attorneys for Defendants
5 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
11 GREGORY DAVENPORT, an Individual Case No.: BC718192
Assigned to the Honorable: Holly J. Fujie
12 Plaintiff, [Dept. 56]
PETERSON · BRADFORD · BURKWITZ
13 vs. DEFENDANT COUNTY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
100 North First Street, Suite 300
DEMURRER
Burbank, California 91502
14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a government entity;
GLOBAL SERVICE RESOURCES, INC., a California
818.562.5800
15 corporation; EKTHA AGGARWAL, an individual; and Date: January 16, 2019
DOES 1-100, inclusive Time: 8:30 a.m.
16 Dept: 56
Defendant.
17
18 RESERVATION ID#: 181130369777
Complaint Filed: August 15, 2018
19
Defendant County of Los Angeles submits this reply memorandum in support of its demurrer to
20
Plaintiff's Complaint.
21
I. INTRODUCTION
22
Plaintiff Gregory Davenport’s Opposition to Demurrer and Motion to Strike (“opposition”) discloses
23
several ways in which this demurrer could have been avoided. First, Plaintiff asks for leave to amend so that
24
he can attach his Government Claim Form, which he filed in January 2018, in support of his Labor Code
25
claims. (Opp. 4:18–22; Martin Decl. ¶ 2.) However, when Defendant County brought Plaintiff’s failure to
26
allege his compliance with this procedural requirement during the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff took the
27
following position: “As for the Labor Code claims, it is our position that these actions do not require
28
compliance with the Government Claims Act, so Plaintiff does not need to amend. However, I would be
1
DEFENDANT COUNTY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER
n:\files\2116-davenport (cola)\pleadings\demurrer\demurrer-reply.docx
Document Filed Date
January 09, 2019
Case Filing Date
August 15, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/09/2019 05:21 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J. Lara,Deputy Clerk 1 Avi Burkwitz, Esq., Bar No.: 217225 Exempt from Filing Fees Ryan A. Graham Esq., Bar No.: 310186 Government Code Section 6103 2 PETERSON · BRADFORD · BURKWITZ 100 North First Street, Suite 300 3 Burbank, California 91502 818.562.5800 4 Attorneys for Defendants 5 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 GREGORY DAVENPORT, an Individual Case No.: BC718192 Assigned to the Honorable: Holly J. Fujie 12 Plaintiff, [Dept. 56] PETERSON · BRADFORD · BURKWITZ 13 vs. DEFENDANT COUNTY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 100 North First Street, Suite 300 DEMURRER Burbank, California 91502 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a government entity; GLOBAL SERVICE RESOURCES, INC., a California 818.562.5800 15 corporation; EKTHA AGGARWAL, an individual; and Date: January 16, 2019 DOES 1-100, inclusive Time: 8:30 a.m. 16 Dept: 56 Defendant. 17 18 RESERVATION ID#: 181130369777 Complaint Filed: August 15, 2018 19 Defendant County of Los Angeles submits this reply memorandum in support of its demurrer to 20 Plaintiff's Complaint. 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 Plaintiff Gregory Davenport’s Opposition to Demurrer and Motion to Strike (“opposition”) discloses 23 several ways in which this demurrer could have been avoided. First, Plaintiff asks for leave to amend so that 24 he can attach his Government Claim Form, which he filed in January 2018, in support of his Labor Code 25 claims. (Opp. 4:18–22; Martin Decl. ¶ 2.) However, when Defendant County brought Plaintiff’s failure to 26 allege his compliance with this procedural requirement during the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff took the 27 following position: “As for the Labor Code claims, it is our position that these actions do not require 28 compliance with the Government Claims Act, so Plaintiff does not need to amend. However, I would be 1 DEFENDANT COUNTY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER n:\files\2116-davenport (cola)\pleadings\demurrer\demurrer-reply.docx