On June 21, 2023 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Frias, Norma,
and
Does 1-20,
Himnel Usa Incorporated,
for Wrongful Termination Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Douglas M. Wade, SBN 183107 ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
Dusty M. Knapp, SBN 349307 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS LAWYER & CORPORATE LAwwlfingf SAN BERNARDINO
500 N. State College B1Vd., Suite 1100
12m 023 1'31 PM
Orange, California 92868
Telephone: (800) 484-4610
Fax: (714) 400-9033
Email: d0ug@ca-businesslawyer.com
OOQONUI-RUJN
dknapp@ca-businesslawyer.com
Attorneys for: Defendant Himnel USA Incorporated
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
KO
NORMA FRIAS,
Case N0. CIVSBZ314042
11 Plaintiff,
Related Case N0. 1: CIV532314471;
12 vs.
Related Case N0. 2: CIVSBZ314929
13
HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
14 California Corporation, HIMNEL USA
INCORPORATED DBA ST. MARY’S Assigned for all purposes to the
15 MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a California Hon. Michael A. Sachs
Corporation, and DOES 1-20, Inclusive,
-
16 Dept. 528 SBIC
Defendants.
17 DEFENDANT HIMNEL USA
VERONICA HERNANDEZ, INCORPORATED’S REPLY TO
18
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
19
Plaintiff,
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
vs.
20
HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a Date: December 12, 2023
21 Time: 8:30 am.
California Corporation, HIMNEL USA
22
INCORPORATED DBA ST. MARY’S Dept. 528 -
SBJC
MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a California
Corporation, and DOES 1-20, Inclusive Action Filed: June 21, 2023
23
Trial Date: Not Yet Assigned
Defendants.
24
25 YESENIA ROBLES,
26 Plaintiff,
27 VS.
28
DEF.’S REPLY TO PLTF.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED ADV. NORMA FRIAS; CASE NO. CIVSBZ314042
HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a
California Corporation, HIMNEL USA
INCORPORATED DBA ST. MARY’S
MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a California
Corporation, and DOES 1-20, Inclusive,
vvvvvvv
Defendants.
OOQONUI-RUJN
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 20, 2023, in its Minute Order, Case N0. CIVSBZSI404Z, the Court stated
its intent:
KO
”[The] court's intent is to consolidate all matters. At this time, court
sets all related cases, CIVSBZ314471, CIV532314929, and this case in
Department 828.”
11 This Motion seeks consolidation for judicial economy under C.C.P. § 1048(a), so
12 the three related matters may be heard by the same judge; and either (a) for discovery
13 up t0 but not including trial, 0r (b) for all purposes including trial.
14 In Opposition, counsel for Plaintiff admits the cases share:
15 o Retaliation claims arising from employment with the same defendant and
16 underlying event 0f alleged discrimination and retaliation (Opp. at 4:11,
17 4:20-22, 5:1);
18 o Identical discovery requests; and each related matter (Opp. at 4:23); and
19 o Relies on identical witnesses (Opp. at 5:6).
20 Plaintiff’s Opposition also omits any argument against consolidation for
21 Discovery up t0 but not including trial. Consolidation for all purposes save trial is
22 appropriate as: (a) n0 argument has been made against it; (b) it is in the interests in
23 judicial economy; and (c) is necessary t0 avoid unnecessarily duplicate law and motion
24 and discovery.
25 It respectfully submitted that given the admissions made in the Opposition, the
26 only issue remaining for the Court to determine whether the three related cases should
27 be consolidated for all purposes 0r merely for purposes 0f discovery.
28 //
2
DEF.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
REPLY TO PLTF.’S
HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED ADV. NORMA FRIAS; CASE NO. CIVSBZ314042
Document Filed Date
December 07, 2023
Case Filing Date
June 21, 2023
Category
Wrongful Termination Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Douglas M. Wade, SBN 183107 ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto) Dusty M. Knapp, SBN 349307 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA BUSINESS LAWYER & CORPORATE LAwwlfingf SAN BERNARDINO 500 N. State College B1Vd., Suite 1100 12m 023 1'31 PM Orange, California 92868 Telephone: (800) 484-4610 Fax: (714) 400-9033 Email: d0ug@ca-businesslawyer.com OOQONUI-RUJN dknapp@ca-businesslawyer.com Attorneys for: Defendant Himnel USA Incorporated SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO KO NORMA FRIAS, Case N0. CIVSBZ314042 11 Plaintiff, Related Case N0. 1: CIV532314471; 12 vs. Related Case N0. 2: CIVSBZ314929 13 HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 14 California Corporation, HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED DBA ST. MARY’S Assigned for all purposes to the 15 MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a California Hon. Michael A. Sachs Corporation, and DOES 1-20, Inclusive, - 16 Dept. 528 SBIC Defendants. 17 DEFENDANT HIMNEL USA VERONICA HERNANDEZ, INCORPORATED’S REPLY TO 18 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 19 Plaintiff, vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE vs. 20 HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a Date: December 12, 2023 21 Time: 8:30 am. California Corporation, HIMNEL USA 22 INCORPORATED DBA ST. MARY’S Dept. 528 - SBJC MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a California Corporation, and DOES 1-20, Inclusive Action Filed: June 21, 2023 23 Trial Date: Not Yet Assigned Defendants. 24 25 YESENIA ROBLES, 26 Plaintiff, 27 VS. 28 DEF.’S REPLY TO PLTF.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED ADV. NORMA FRIAS; CASE NO. CIVSBZ314042 HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED, a California Corporation, HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED DBA ST. MARY’S MONTESSORI SCHOOL, a California Corporation, and DOES 1-20, Inclusive, vvvvvvv Defendants. OOQONUI-RUJN I. INTRODUCTION On October 20, 2023, in its Minute Order, Case N0. CIVSBZSI404Z, the Court stated its intent: KO ”[The] court's intent is to consolidate all matters. At this time, court sets all related cases, CIVSBZ314471, CIV532314929, and this case in Department 828.” 11 This Motion seeks consolidation for judicial economy under C.C.P. § 1048(a), so 12 the three related matters may be heard by the same judge; and either (a) for discovery 13 up t0 but not including trial, 0r (b) for all purposes including trial. 14 In Opposition, counsel for Plaintiff admits the cases share: 15 o Retaliation claims arising from employment with the same defendant and 16 underlying event 0f alleged discrimination and retaliation (Opp. at 4:11, 17 4:20-22, 5:1); 18 o Identical discovery requests; and each related matter (Opp. at 4:23); and 19 o Relies on identical witnesses (Opp. at 5:6). 20 Plaintiff’s Opposition also omits any argument against consolidation for 21 Discovery up t0 but not including trial. Consolidation for all purposes save trial is 22 appropriate as: (a) n0 argument has been made against it; (b) it is in the interests in 23 judicial economy; and (c) is necessary t0 avoid unnecessarily duplicate law and motion 24 and discovery. 25 It respectfully submitted that given the admissions made in the Opposition, the 26 only issue remaining for the Court to determine whether the three related cases should 27 be consolidated for all purposes 0r merely for purposes 0f discovery. 28 // 2 DEF.’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE REPLY TO PLTF.’S HIMNEL USA INCORPORATED ADV. NORMA FRIAS; CASE NO. CIVSBZ314042