Preview
JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)
FALAKASSA LAW, P C.
2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450
3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067
Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868
4 Email: josh(^falakassalaw.com
5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246)
LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
6 1010 F Street, Ste. 300
Sacramento, Califomia 95814
7 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787
Email: ash(^libertymanlaw.com
8
Attomeys for Plaintiff,
9 SAJIDA ZAMAN
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
12
SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
13 RESERVATION ID: 2656705
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
14 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
vs.
MOTION FOR REQUESTS FOR
15 ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1), BE
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES
DEEMED ADMITTED, AND
16 through 20, inclusive, MONETARY SANCTIONS
17 Defendants. Concurrently-filed with Plaintiff's Motion to
18 Compel Discovery Responses and Monetary
Sanctions
19
Date: September 1, 2022
20 Time: 1:30pm ^f^,\^'
Dept.: 53 1^ li
21 Trial Date: September 12, 2022
22 I. INTRODUCTION.
23 Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff) served her first set of Requests for Admissions on
24 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation ("Defendant") via email on May 27, 2022. However, Defendant
25 failed to serve objections or responses by the June 28, 2022 deadline.
26 Plaintiff therefore moves this Court for an order deeming her Requests admitted, with
27 Defendant having waived its right to object and Defendant being monetarily sanctioned in the
28 amount of $1,310.00.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 of 5
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2 A. Plaintiff Alleges in her Operative Complaint She was Terminated in Violation
3 of FEHA for Her Disabilities and Work-Related Injuries.
4 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Reliel
5 ("FAC") filed on January 24, 2020, that she was an Inspector-Packer employee of Defendant, a
6 liquid bag manufacturing company, from December 2003 until January 2019. (FAC, 3, 6, 9.)
7 Plaintiff alleges that her job duties included packing and inspecting bags and other labor-intensive
8 tasks, requiring standing for long periods and lifting/hauling heavy loads (Id., ^6.)
9 Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 3, 2018, she suffered an injury to her left knee
10 while working for Defendant, and that over time the injury gradually tumed from stiffhess to
II consistent and considerable pain. (Id., ^ 7.) About a month later on January 3, 2019, Plaintiff
12 became aware her injury was work-related, and reported it to Defendant to seek treatment and
13 begin a workers' compensation claim, as the knee injury caused chronic pain and interfered with
14 Plaintiffs ability to walk, move, and work. (Id.)
15 After being seen by the workers compensation medical provider. Plaintiff was instmcted
16 to go home until further notice. (Id., Xi 8-9.) One week later, on or about January 10, 2019,
17 Defendant called Plaintiff into a meting, and terminated her 16 years of employment because she
18 allegedly neglected to report her injury timely in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety
19 Behavior's ("CSB") policy. (Id., ^ 9.) This policy in sum states that employees are to "Immediately
20 report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member no matter how minor or without
21 exception," and that "any violation of these Critical Safety Behaviors will result in immediate
22 termination of employment." (Id.)
23 Plaintiff alleges that her injury required that she take time off work or receive othei
24 modified work duties or other accommodations—however, upon leaming of Plaintiff's injury,
25 Defendant immediately terminated her employment. (Id., | 10.) PlaintifT alleges that but for her
26 injury and workers compensation claim, she would not have been terminated, with the CSB policy
27 used as pretext, itself facially in violation of OSHA regulations. (Id.)
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 of 5
Based on these allegations. Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) Wrongful Termination
2 in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; (3) Disability
3 Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); (4) Failure to
4 Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Provide a Reasonable
5 Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7)
6 Unfair Competition Law. (Id., ^ 12-64.)
7 B. Plaintiff Served Her Requests for Admissions. Set One (1). to Defendant via
8 Email on May 27.2022, but Defendant Failed to Timely Respond or Object bv
9 the June 28. 2022 Deadline.
10 On May 27, 2022 Plaintiff served her first set of Requests for Admissions propounded
11 against Defendant via email. (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Support ["Khos. Decl."],
12 I 3; attached as Exhibit A is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Requests for
13 Admissions to Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation (Set One) [hereinafter "RFAs"]; attached as
14 Exhibit B is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff s Proof of Service, showing a service date of May
15 27, 2022 and executed May 31, 2022.) These RFAs in sum ask Defendant to admit information
16 regarding:
17 (1) Plaintiff not being trained on the CSB immediate reporting requirement;
18 (2) not being trained on recognizing signs of cumulative trauma injuries or gradually
19 worsening symptoms such as her strained knee/hamstring muscle;
20 (3) that Plaintiffs injury was cumulative in nature caused by repeated trauma over time
21 and not caused by a single event accident;
22 (4) that Plaintiffs injury was not diagnosed sooner than January 3, 2019;
23 (5) that Defendant never discussed Plaintiffs rights under the FEHA during her alleged
24 late reporting;
25 (6) that Plaintiffs work restrictions did not prohibit her from performing all of her essential
26 job functions;
27 (7) that the CSB policy does not require employees to immediately report all physical pain
28 until they leam their pain is connected to an injury;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3 of 5
(8) Plaintiff never being trained on distinguishing bodily sensations such as soreness due
2 to fatigue, from workplace injuries;
3 (9) that Defendant did not disclose it was cited by OSFIA for being a serious/repeat violator
4 of machine safety procedures/failure to adequately train employees on safety
5 processes/failing audits of safety processes;
6 and related topics. (See Khos. Decl., 14; see Exhibit A, Requests for Admissions Nos. I through
7 23.)
8 Given the requests were served electronically, the deadline for Defendant to serve
9 responses was June 28, 2022, constituting 30 calendar days plus two additional court days from
10 May 27, 2022. However, as of this writing Defendant did not serve any objections or responses to
11 the RFAs. (Khos. Decl., | 5.) This was despite the fact that Defendant did serve objections on
12 concurrently-served discovery requests from the same email the RFAs were served in. (Id.; see
13 Exhibit B.)
14 III. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO HAVE HER REOUESTS FOR ADMISSION BE
15 DEEMED ADMITTED WITHOUT MEETING OR CONFERRING AND
16 WITHOUT A SEPARATE STATEMENT. WHILE DEFENDANT MUST BE
17 SANCTIONED WHILE WAIVING ITS RIGHT TO OBJECT.
18 Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280, when a party fails to timely serve responses to
19 Requests for Admissions, they waive any objection to the Requests. (Id., subd. (a).) Further, the
20 propounding party may move for an order that "the tmth of any matters specified in the requests
21 be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanction..." (Id., subd. (b).) A "deemed admitted'
22 order establishes by judicial fiat that a nonresponding party has responded to requests for
23 admission by admitted the truth of all matters contained therein (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014)
24 223 Cal. App. 4'^ 762, 776; Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4"^ 973, 979.) Further, imposition
25 of monetary sanctions is mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); see also Stover v. Bruntz
26 (2017) 218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551, 554; Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)) Finally, no meet and confer
27 declaration or separate statement is required when the responding party fails to timely respond
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4 of 5
1 (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(b)(1); see generally Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, cf Code Civ
2 Proc. §2033.290(b)(l)-(2).)
3 Here, Plaintiff served via email her RFAs on May 27,2022. Thirty days from that date was
4 June 26, 2022, and adding two court days for electronic service made Defendant's deadline to
5 object and respond June 28, 2022. (Id., § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).) However, at no point during June 28
6 2022 did Defendant serve objections or responses to the RFAs.
7 As such. Defendant has now waived all objections it could otherwise make to the RFAs
8 Plaintiff isfijrtherentitled to have her RFAs deemed admitted. Defendant must also be sanctioned
9 monetarily in the amount of $1,310.00. (Khos. Decl., 6-7.) Plaintiff was not obligated to meet
10 and confer or provide a separate statement under these circumstances.
11 IV. CONCLUSION
12 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfiilly requests this Court GRANT the instant Motion
13 and ORDER (1) Defendant to have waived its right to object to each of Requests for Admissions
14 Nos. I through 23; (2) deem each of Requests for Admissions Nos. 1 through 23 ADMITTED;
15 and (3) to pay separate monetary sanctions in an amount of $1,310.00.
16 Dated: June 29, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
17
18
19
Arash S. Khosrowshahi
20 Joshua S. Falakassa
Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
5 of 5
Preview
JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FALAKASSA LAW, P C. 2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450 3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 4 Email: josh(^falakassalaw.com 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 6 1010 F Street, Ste. 300 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 7 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787 Email: ash(^libertymanlaw.com 8 Attomeys for Plaintiff, 9 SAJIDA ZAMAN 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 12 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121 13 RESERVATION ID: 2656705 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 14 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF vs. MOTION FOR REQUESTS FOR 15 ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (1), BE LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES DEEMED ADMITTED, AND 16 through 20, inclusive, MONETARY SANCTIONS 17 Defendants. Concurrently-filed with Plaintiff's Motion to 18 Compel Discovery Responses and Monetary Sanctions 19 Date: September 1, 2022 20 Time: 1:30pm ^f^,\^' Dept.: 53 1^ li 21 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 22 I. INTRODUCTION. 23 Plaintiff Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff) served her first set of Requests for Admissions on 24 Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation ("Defendant") via email on May 27, 2022. However, Defendant 25 failed to serve objections or responses by the June 28, 2022 deadline. 26 Plaintiff therefore moves this Court for an order deeming her Requests admitted, with 27 Defendant having waived its right to object and Defendant being monetarily sanctioned in the 28 amount of $1,310.00. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 of 5 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 A. Plaintiff Alleges in her Operative Complaint She was Terminated in Violation 3 of FEHA for Her Disabilities and Work-Related Injuries. 4 Plaintiff alleges in her First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Reliel 5 ("FAC") filed on January 24, 2020, that she was an Inspector-Packer employee of Defendant, a 6 liquid bag manufacturing company, from December 2003 until January 2019. (FAC, 3, 6, 9.) 7 Plaintiff alleges that her job duties included packing and inspecting bags and other labor-intensive 8 tasks, requiring standing for long periods and lifting/hauling heavy loads (Id., ^6.) 9 Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 3, 2018, she suffered an injury to her left knee 10 while working for Defendant, and that over time the injury gradually tumed from stiffhess to II consistent and considerable pain. (Id., ^ 7.) About a month later on January 3, 2019, Plaintiff 12 became aware her injury was work-related, and reported it to Defendant to seek treatment and 13 begin a workers' compensation claim, as the knee injury caused chronic pain and interfered with 14 Plaintiffs ability to walk, move, and work. (Id.) 15 After being seen by the workers compensation medical provider. Plaintiff was instmcted 16 to go home until further notice. (Id., Xi 8-9.) One week later, on or about January 10, 2019, 17 Defendant called Plaintiff into a meting, and terminated her 16 years of employment because she 18 allegedly neglected to report her injury timely in violation of Defendant's Critical Safety 19 Behavior's ("CSB") policy. (Id., ^ 9.) This policy in sum states that employees are to "Immediately 20 report all incidents to your supervisor, management team member no matter how minor or without 21 exception," and that "any violation of these Critical Safety Behaviors will result in immediate 22 termination of employment." (Id.) 23 Plaintiff alleges that her injury required that she take time off work or receive othei 24 modified work duties or other accommodations—however, upon leaming of Plaintiff's injury, 25 Defendant immediately terminated her employment. (Id., | 10.) PlaintifT alleges that but for her 26 injury and workers compensation claim, she would not have been terminated, with the CSB policy 27 used as pretext, itself facially in violation of OSHA regulations. (Id.) 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 of 5 Based on these allegations. Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) Wrongful Termination 2 in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; (3) Disability 3 Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); (4) Failure to 4 Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Provide a Reasonable 5 Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (7) 6 Unfair Competition Law. (Id., ^ 12-64.) 7 B. Plaintiff Served Her Requests for Admissions. Set One (1). to Defendant via 8 Email on May 27.2022, but Defendant Failed to Timely Respond or Object bv 9 the June 28. 2022 Deadline. 10 On May 27, 2022 Plaintiff served her first set of Requests for Admissions propounded 11 against Defendant via email. (Declaration of Arash S. Khosrowshahi in Support ["Khos. Decl."], 12 I 3; attached as Exhibit A is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff Sajida Zaman's Requests for 13 Admissions to Defendant Liqui-Box Corporation (Set One) [hereinafter "RFAs"]; attached as 14 Exhibit B is a tme and correct copy of Plaintiff s Proof of Service, showing a service date of May 15 27, 2022 and executed May 31, 2022.) These RFAs in sum ask Defendant to admit information 16 regarding: 17 (1) Plaintiff not being trained on the CSB immediate reporting requirement; 18 (2) not being trained on recognizing signs of cumulative trauma injuries or gradually 19 worsening symptoms such as her strained knee/hamstring muscle; 20 (3) that Plaintiffs injury was cumulative in nature caused by repeated trauma over time 21 and not caused by a single event accident; 22 (4) that Plaintiffs injury was not diagnosed sooner than January 3, 2019; 23 (5) that Defendant never discussed Plaintiffs rights under the FEHA during her alleged 24 late reporting; 25 (6) that Plaintiffs work restrictions did not prohibit her from performing all of her essential 26 job functions; 27 (7) that the CSB policy does not require employees to immediately report all physical pain 28 until they leam their pain is connected to an injury; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 of 5 (8) Plaintiff never being trained on distinguishing bodily sensations such as soreness due 2 to fatigue, from workplace injuries; 3 (9) that Defendant did not disclose it was cited by OSFIA for being a serious/repeat violator 4 of machine safety procedures/failure to adequately train employees on safety 5 processes/failing audits of safety processes; 6 and related topics. (See Khos. Decl., 14; see Exhibit A, Requests for Admissions Nos. I through 7 23.) 8 Given the requests were served electronically, the deadline for Defendant to serve 9 responses was June 28, 2022, constituting 30 calendar days plus two additional court days from 10 May 27, 2022. However, as of this writing Defendant did not serve any objections or responses to 11 the RFAs. (Khos. Decl., | 5.) This was despite the fact that Defendant did serve objections on 12 concurrently-served discovery requests from the same email the RFAs were served in. (Id.; see 13 Exhibit B.) 14 III. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO HAVE HER REOUESTS FOR ADMISSION BE 15 DEEMED ADMITTED WITHOUT MEETING OR CONFERRING AND 16 WITHOUT A SEPARATE STATEMENT. WHILE DEFENDANT MUST BE 17 SANCTIONED WHILE WAIVING ITS RIGHT TO OBJECT. 18 Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280, when a party fails to timely serve responses to 19 Requests for Admissions, they waive any objection to the Requests. (Id., subd. (a).) Further, the 20 propounding party may move for an order that "the tmth of any matters specified in the requests 21 be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanction..." (Id., subd. (b).) A "deemed admitted' 22 order establishes by judicial fiat that a nonresponding party has responded to requests for 23 admission by admitted the truth of all matters contained therein (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 24 223 Cal. App. 4'^ 762, 776; Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4"^ 973, 979.) Further, imposition 25 of monetary sanctions is mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); see also Stover v. Bruntz 26 (2017) 218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551, 554; Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)) Finally, no meet and confer 27 declaration or separate statement is required when the responding party fails to timely respond 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 of 5 1 (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(b)(1); see generally Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, cf Code Civ 2 Proc. §2033.290(b)(l)-(2).) 3 Here, Plaintiff served via email her RFAs on May 27,2022. Thirty days from that date was 4 June 26, 2022, and adding two court days for electronic service made Defendant's deadline to 5 object and respond June 28, 2022. (Id., § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).) However, at no point during June 28 6 2022 did Defendant serve objections or responses to the RFAs. 7 As such. Defendant has now waived all objections it could otherwise make to the RFAs 8 Plaintiff isfijrtherentitled to have her RFAs deemed admitted. Defendant must also be sanctioned 9 monetarily in the amount of $1,310.00. (Khos. Decl., 6-7.) Plaintiff was not obligated to meet 10 and confer or provide a separate statement under these circumstances. 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 Given the foregoing. Plaintiff respectfiilly requests this Court GRANT the instant Motion 13 and ORDER (1) Defendant to have waived its right to object to each of Requests for Admissions 14 Nos. I through 23; (2) deem each of Requests for Admissions Nos. 1 through 23 ADMITTED; 15 and (3) to pay separate monetary sanctions in an amount of $1,310.00. 16 Dated: June 29, 2022 LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 17 18 19 Arash S. Khosrowshahi 20 Joshua S. Falakassa Attomeys for Plaintiff Sajida Zaman 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 5 of 5