arrow left
arrow right
  • LUCY AUNER ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • LUCY AUNER ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

e ORIGINAL erry M. Goldberg, Esq., S.B. No. 55674 , FILED Bradley C. Gage, Esq., S.B. No. 117808 Supertor Court Of Callforata ‘County Of Los Angeles IMilad Sadr, Esq., S.B. No. 245080 ILAW OFFICES OF GOLDBERG & GAGE A Partnership of Professional Corporations AUG 02 2018 23002 Victory Boulevard . (Woodland Hills, California 91367 Sherri R. Carter, Officer/Cterk Tel: (818) 340-9252 Fax: (818) 340-9088 By, : Deputy Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ILUCY AUNER and KRISTEN AUFDEMBERG SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 LUCY AUNER and KRISTEN CASE NO. BC675305 11 AUFDEMBERG, Assigned to: Hon. Terry A. Green 12 Plaintiffs, Dept No.: 14 13 vs. NOTICE OF RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ PITCHESS MOTION 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, Trial Date: April 8, 2019 15 Defendants. Complaint filed: September 8, 2017 16 17 18 19 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 20 Please take notice that on August 2, 2018 the Pitchess motion of the plaintiffs came on regularly for 21 éaring before the Honorable Terry Green. Bradley Gage appeared for plaintiffs. Clifton Baker appeared for 22 defendants. 23 The Court granted the Pitchess motion noting that in discovery responses, defendants claimed plaintiff 24 Ineeded to seek the materials via a Pitchess Motion Then in the Pitchess Motion, defendants argued that a 25 itchess motion was not justified. be Ko pene Notice of Ruling ” Page -1-