Preview
1 JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
2 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite # 450
3 Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868
4 Email: josh(^falakassalaw.com
5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246)
6 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
1010 F Street, Ste. 300
7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814
Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787
8 Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com
9 Attomeys for Plaintiff,
SAHDA ZAMAN
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
BY FAX
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
14
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX
15
vs. PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER (1)
16 SPECIALLY SETTING HEARINGS ON
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES DISCOVERY MOTIONS; OR
17 through 20, inclusive.
ALTERNATIVELY (2) SEEKING
18 HEARINGS ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS
Defendants. ON SHORTENED TIME.
19
Date: August 11, 2022
20 Time: 9:15a.m.
21 Dept.: 53
Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22
I. INTRODUCTION
23
Last week this Court granted Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's ("Plaintiff') request to specially set
24
her discovery motions scheduled to be heard on October 18, 2022 to August 25, 2022. Plaintifif
25
now requests that her remaining discovery motions scheduled to be heard on September 1, 2022
26
be advanced either to August 25, 2022, or 15 days before the September 12, 2022 trial date, i.e.
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 of 5
August 26, 2022. Plaintiff faces irreparable harm if she is not allowed to have her discovery
2 motions heard in advance of trial, preventing her from present her case flilly on the merits.
3 Plaintifif thus respectfully requests this Court issue an Order (1) specially setting hearings
4 for PlaintifFs discovery motions set on September 1, 2022 to August 25, 2022, or August 26,
5 2022; or in the altemative (2) set hearings for Plaintiff's discovery motions on shortened time,
6 with Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's ("Defendant") opposition papers to befiledand served
7 five court days and Plaintiffs reply papers to befiledand served two court days prior to the
8 Court's chosen hearing date per Local Rule 2.35(B).
9 IL STATEMENT OF FACTS.
10 A. Plaintiff Sustained Work-Related Injuries and Disabilities to her Knee While
11 on the Job but was Terminated for Allegedly Not Reporting Immediately.
12 Plaintiff was a 16-year employee of Defendant, working as an Inspector-Packer. On or
13 about December 3, 2018, Plaintifif felt a pull on her left knee while working for Defendant, which
14 over time wentfromstiffness to consistent and considerable pain. (First Amended Complaint for
15 Damages and Injunctive Relief ["FAC"], 7.) Plaintiff first became aware her pain was a work-
16 related knee injury on or about January 3, 2019, which was when she reported it to Defendant to
17 seek treatment and begin her worker's compensation claim, as she could no longer work due to
18 her pain, making her injury a disability limiting a major life activity. (FAC, ^ 7.)
19 Thereafter, Plaintiff was instructed by Defendant to go home until further notice but was
20 then summoned back for a work meeting on January 10, 2019. {Id., H 9.) At the meeting Plaintiff's
21 16 years of employment was terminated because she allegedly "neglected to report [her] injury
22 timely" in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety Behaviors ("CSB") policy, which states in
23 relevant part, "Immediately report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member no
24 matter how minor or without exception," and that "[a]ny violation of these Critical Safety
25 Behaviors will result in immediate termination of employment." {Id.)
26 Based on these allegations, Plaintifif alleges she was terminated in retaliation because of
27 her work-related injuries/disabilities and need for accommodation under the FEHA, with the CSB
28 policy used as pretext. {Id., ^ 10.)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 of 5
B. Discovery on Immediate Reporting of Work-Related Injuries; Training on
2 Recognizing Cumulative Trauma Injuries versus Pain/Soreness; Plaintiffs
.3 Injury; Discussion of PlaintifPs Rights Under FEHA; and Work Restrictions.
4 On May 27, 2022 Plaintiff served her second set of Form Interrogatories—General
5 propounded against Defendant via email. (Khos. Decl., ^ 3; attached as Exhibit A is a tme and
6 correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two.) The
7 interrogatories were concurrently served with Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions to Defendant
8 Liqui-Box Corporation (Set One) (Khos. Decl., ^ 3; attached as Exhibit B is a tme and correct
9 copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Requests for Admissions, Set One), and contained a single
10 interrogatory. No. 17.1, which required the Defendant to provide all facts, witnesses, and
11 documents in support of any denial or qualified admission to the Requests for Admissions. (Khos.
12 Decl., ^ 3; see Exhibit A.)
13 The Requests for Admissions themselves in relevant part asked Defendant to admit
14 information regarding: (1) Plaintiff not being trained on the CSB immediate reporting
15 requirement; (2) not being trained on recognizing signs of cumulative trauma injuries or gradually
16 worsening symptoms such as her strained knee/hamstring muscle; (3) that Plaintiffs injury was
17 cumulative in nature caused by repeated trauma over time and not caused by a single event
18 accident; (4) that Plaintiffs injury was not diagnosed sooner than January 3, 2019; (5) that
19 Defendant never discussed Plaintiffs rights under the FEHA during her alleged late reporting;
20 (6) that Plaintiffs work restrictions did not prohibit her from performing all of her essential job
21 functions; (7) that the CSB policy does not require employees to immediately report all physical
22 pain until they leam their pain is connected to an injury; and (8) Plaintiff never being trained on
23 distinguishing bodily sensations such as soreness due to fatigue, from workplace injuries. (See
24 Khos. Decl., ^ 4; see Exhibit B, Requests for Admissions Nos. 1 through 23.)
25 Because Defendant did not timely serve responses or objections, Plaintiff thereafter filed
26 her motion to compel on Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two (Res. ID: 2656706) and motion
27 to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions, Set One (Res. ID: 2656705) to be heard on
28 September 1, 2022. (Khos Decl., 1| 5.)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 of 5
1 III. PLAINTIFF FACES IRREPARABLE HARM IF HER DISCOVERY
2 MOTIONS CANNOT BE HEARD 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE TRIAL DATE.
3, Ex parte applications require an "affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing
4 competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any
' 5 other statutory basis fpr granting relief ex parte." (Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202.) Courts
6 must abide by the guiding principle of deciding cases on their merits, and when the two policies
7 of judicial efficiency and deciding cases on the merits "collide head-on, the strong public policy
8 favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency."
9 {Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, 644.)
10 As this Court mled on Plaintiffs prior ex parte application on August 5, 2022:
11 "As provided in CCP 2024.020(a), 'motions conceming discovery [shall be] heard on or
12 before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial.' Plaintiffs requested date of
13 September 1, 2022 is not 15 days prior to the September 12, 2022 trial date. In its
14 discretion, the Court GRANTS PlaintifFs application in part and advances the hearing
15 date on Plaintiffs five motions currently set for hearing on October 18, 2022 to August
16 25, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 53."
17 (See Exhibit A to Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Request for Judicial Notice in Support)(emphasis
18 added.)
19 Plaintiffis thus seeking similar relief she sought last week. Her discovery motions set for
20 October 18, 2022, were advanced to August 25, 2022, but the discovery motions set for hearing
21 on September 1, 2022 were not advanced to that date or 15 days before the trial date, i.e. August
22 26, 2022.
23 Plaintiff faces irreparable harm if she is not afforded the opportunity to argue these
24 remaining discovery motions, which go to the heart of relevant and material evidence as to (1)
25 Plainfiff not being trained on the CSB immediate reporting requirement; (2) not being trained on
26 recognizing signs of cumulative trauma injuries or gradually worsening symptoms such as her
27 strained knee/hamstring muscle; (3) that Plaintiffs injury was cumulative in nature caused by
28 repeated trauma over time and not caused by a single event accident; (4) that Plaintiffs injury
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4 of 5
1 was not diagnosed sooner than January 3, 2019; (5) that Defendant never discussed Plaintiffs
2. rights under the FEHA during her alleged late reporting; (6) that Plaintiffs work restricUons did
.3 not prohibit her from performing all of her essenfial job functions; (7) that the CSB policy does
4 not require employees to immediately report all physical pain until they leam their pain is
«
5
connected to an injury; and (8) Plaintiff never being trained on disfinguishing bodily sensations
6
such as soreness due to fatigue, from workplace injuries. Without this discovery, she faces an
7
incomplete record as trial fast approaches, which would jeopardize her ability to present her case
8
fully on the merits. All motions were filed and served well in advance of the 16-court-day notice
9
period. (Khos Decl., f 7; attached as Exhibit C are true and correct copies of the proofs of service
10
of each motion.)
11
IV. CONCLUSION
12
Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court issue an Order (1) specially
13
setting hearings for Plaintiffs discovery motions set on September 1, 2022 to August 25, 2022,
14
or August 26, 2022; or in the altemative (2) set hearings for Plaintiffs discovery motions on
15
shortened time, with Defendant's opposition papers to be filed and served five court days and
16
Plaintiffs reply papers to be filed and served two court days prior to the Court's chosen hearing
17
date per Local Rule 2.35(B).
18
Dated: August 10, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
19 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
20
21
Arash S. Khosrowshahi
22 Joshua S. Falakassa
Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
5 of 5
Preview
1 JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 2 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite # 450 3 Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 4 Email: josh(^falakassalaw.com 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) 6 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 1010 F Street, Ste. 300 7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787 8 Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com 9 Attomeys for Plaintiff, SAHDA ZAMAN 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA BY FAX 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121 14 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX 15 vs. PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER (1) 16 SPECIALLY SETTING HEARINGS ON LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES DISCOVERY MOTIONS; OR 17 through 20, inclusive. ALTERNATIVELY (2) SEEKING 18 HEARINGS ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS Defendants. ON SHORTENED TIME. 19 Date: August 11, 2022 20 Time: 9:15a.m. 21 Dept.: 53 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 Last week this Court granted Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's ("Plaintiff') request to specially set 24 her discovery motions scheduled to be heard on October 18, 2022 to August 25, 2022. Plaintifif 25 now requests that her remaining discovery motions scheduled to be heard on September 1, 2022 26 be advanced either to August 25, 2022, or 15 days before the September 12, 2022 trial date, i.e. 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 of 5 August 26, 2022. Plaintiff faces irreparable harm if she is not allowed to have her discovery 2 motions heard in advance of trial, preventing her from present her case flilly on the merits. 3 Plaintifif thus respectfully requests this Court issue an Order (1) specially setting hearings 4 for PlaintifFs discovery motions set on September 1, 2022 to August 25, 2022, or August 26, 5 2022; or in the altemative (2) set hearings for Plaintiff's discovery motions on shortened time, 6 with Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation's ("Defendant") opposition papers to befiledand served 7 five court days and Plaintiffs reply papers to befiledand served two court days prior to the 8 Court's chosen hearing date per Local Rule 2.35(B). 9 IL STATEMENT OF FACTS. 10 A. Plaintiff Sustained Work-Related Injuries and Disabilities to her Knee While 11 on the Job but was Terminated for Allegedly Not Reporting Immediately. 12 Plaintiff was a 16-year employee of Defendant, working as an Inspector-Packer. On or 13 about December 3, 2018, Plaintifif felt a pull on her left knee while working for Defendant, which 14 over time wentfromstiffness to consistent and considerable pain. (First Amended Complaint for 15 Damages and Injunctive Relief ["FAC"], 7.) Plaintiff first became aware her pain was a work- 16 related knee injury on or about January 3, 2019, which was when she reported it to Defendant to 17 seek treatment and begin her worker's compensation claim, as she could no longer work due to 18 her pain, making her injury a disability limiting a major life activity. (FAC, ^ 7.) 19 Thereafter, Plaintiff was instructed by Defendant to go home until further notice but was 20 then summoned back for a work meeting on January 10, 2019. {Id., H 9.) At the meeting Plaintiff's 21 16 years of employment was terminated because she allegedly "neglected to report [her] injury 22 timely" in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety Behaviors ("CSB") policy, which states in 23 relevant part, "Immediately report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member no 24 matter how minor or without exception," and that "[a]ny violation of these Critical Safety 25 Behaviors will result in immediate termination of employment." {Id.) 26 Based on these allegations, Plaintifif alleges she was terminated in retaliation because of 27 her work-related injuries/disabilities and need for accommodation under the FEHA, with the CSB 28 policy used as pretext. {Id., ^ 10.) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 of 5 B. Discovery on Immediate Reporting of Work-Related Injuries; Training on 2 Recognizing Cumulative Trauma Injuries versus Pain/Soreness; Plaintiffs .3 Injury; Discussion of PlaintifPs Rights Under FEHA; and Work Restrictions. 4 On May 27, 2022 Plaintiff served her second set of Form Interrogatories—General 5 propounded against Defendant via email. (Khos. Decl., ^ 3; attached as Exhibit A is a tme and 6 correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two.) The 7 interrogatories were concurrently served with Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions to Defendant 8 Liqui-Box Corporation (Set One) (Khos. Decl., ^ 3; attached as Exhibit B is a tme and correct 9 copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Requests for Admissions, Set One), and contained a single 10 interrogatory. No. 17.1, which required the Defendant to provide all facts, witnesses, and 11 documents in support of any denial or qualified admission to the Requests for Admissions. (Khos. 12 Decl., ^ 3; see Exhibit A.) 13 The Requests for Admissions themselves in relevant part asked Defendant to admit 14 information regarding: (1) Plaintiff not being trained on the CSB immediate reporting 15 requirement; (2) not being trained on recognizing signs of cumulative trauma injuries or gradually 16 worsening symptoms such as her strained knee/hamstring muscle; (3) that Plaintiffs injury was 17 cumulative in nature caused by repeated trauma over time and not caused by a single event 18 accident; (4) that Plaintiffs injury was not diagnosed sooner than January 3, 2019; (5) that 19 Defendant never discussed Plaintiffs rights under the FEHA during her alleged late reporting; 20 (6) that Plaintiffs work restrictions did not prohibit her from performing all of her essential job 21 functions; (7) that the CSB policy does not require employees to immediately report all physical 22 pain until they leam their pain is connected to an injury; and (8) Plaintiff never being trained on 23 distinguishing bodily sensations such as soreness due to fatigue, from workplace injuries. (See 24 Khos. Decl., ^ 4; see Exhibit B, Requests for Admissions Nos. 1 through 23.) 25 Because Defendant did not timely serve responses or objections, Plaintiff thereafter filed 26 her motion to compel on Form Interrogatories—General, Set Two (Res. ID: 2656706) and motion 27 to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions, Set One (Res. ID: 2656705) to be heard on 28 September 1, 2022. (Khos Decl., 1| 5.) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 of 5 1 III. PLAINTIFF FACES IRREPARABLE HARM IF HER DISCOVERY 2 MOTIONS CANNOT BE HEARD 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE TRIAL DATE. 3, Ex parte applications require an "affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing 4 competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any ' 5 other statutory basis fpr granting relief ex parte." (Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202.) Courts 6 must abide by the guiding principle of deciding cases on their merits, and when the two policies 7 of judicial efficiency and deciding cases on the merits "collide head-on, the strong public policy 8 favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency." 9 {Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, 644.) 10 As this Court mled on Plaintiffs prior ex parte application on August 5, 2022: 11 "As provided in CCP 2024.020(a), 'motions conceming discovery [shall be] heard on or 12 before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial.' Plaintiffs requested date of 13 September 1, 2022 is not 15 days prior to the September 12, 2022 trial date. In its 14 discretion, the Court GRANTS PlaintifFs application in part and advances the hearing 15 date on Plaintiffs five motions currently set for hearing on October 18, 2022 to August 16 25, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 53." 17 (See Exhibit A to Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Request for Judicial Notice in Support)(emphasis 18 added.) 19 Plaintiffis thus seeking similar relief she sought last week. Her discovery motions set for 20 October 18, 2022, were advanced to August 25, 2022, but the discovery motions set for hearing 21 on September 1, 2022 were not advanced to that date or 15 days before the trial date, i.e. August 22 26, 2022. 23 Plaintiff faces irreparable harm if she is not afforded the opportunity to argue these 24 remaining discovery motions, which go to the heart of relevant and material evidence as to (1) 25 Plainfiff not being trained on the CSB immediate reporting requirement; (2) not being trained on 26 recognizing signs of cumulative trauma injuries or gradually worsening symptoms such as her 27 strained knee/hamstring muscle; (3) that Plaintiffs injury was cumulative in nature caused by 28 repeated trauma over time and not caused by a single event accident; (4) that Plaintiffs injury MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 of 5 1 was not diagnosed sooner than January 3, 2019; (5) that Defendant never discussed Plaintiffs 2. rights under the FEHA during her alleged late reporting; (6) that Plaintiffs work restricUons did .3 not prohibit her from performing all of her essenfial job functions; (7) that the CSB policy does 4 not require employees to immediately report all physical pain until they leam their pain is « 5 connected to an injury; and (8) Plaintiff never being trained on disfinguishing bodily sensations 6 such as soreness due to fatigue, from workplace injuries. Without this discovery, she faces an 7 incomplete record as trial fast approaches, which would jeopardize her ability to present her case 8 fully on the merits. All motions were filed and served well in advance of the 16-court-day notice 9 period. (Khos Decl., f 7; attached as Exhibit C are true and correct copies of the proofs of service 10 of each motion.) 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court issue an Order (1) specially 13 setting hearings for Plaintiffs discovery motions set on September 1, 2022 to August 25, 2022, 14 or August 26, 2022; or in the altemative (2) set hearings for Plaintiffs discovery motions on 15 shortened time, with Defendant's opposition papers to be filed and served five court days and 16 Plaintiffs reply papers to be filed and served two court days prior to the Court's chosen hearing 17 date per Local Rule 2.35(B). 18 Dated: August 10, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 19 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 20 21 Arash S. Khosrowshahi 22 Joshua S. Falakassa Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 5 of 5