HEARING DATE: July 14, 2020
CASE NUMBER: 18STCV05222
CASE NAME: Cristian Delgado Barrera v. Albertson’s LLC
MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff Cristian Delgado Barrera
OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant, Albertson’s LLC
TRIAL DATE: October 20, 2020
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas
OPPOSITION: June 10, 2020
REPLY: July 6, 2020
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED. Defendant is to give notice.
This action arises out of Plaintiff, Cristian Delgado Barrera (“Plaintiff”)’s prior employment with Defendant, Albertsons, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that he was hired as a “Laborer” on March 12, 2018 and that he developed a “serious physical disability” on April 22, 2018 which restricted his working ability and “finite time off.” Plaintiff further alleges that immediately after receiving approval for disability leave, he was fired effective June 8, 2018 even though he was physically able to work.
Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the followin
Hearing Date
July 14, 2020
Type
Civil Rights/Discrimination (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
HEARING DATE: July 14, 2020
CASE NUMBER: 18STCV05222
CASE NAME: Cristian Delgado Barrera v. Albertson’s LLC
MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff Cristian Delgado Barrera
OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant, Albertson’s LLC
TRIAL DATE: October 20, 2020
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas
OPPOSITION: June 10, 2020
REPLY: July 6, 2020
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED. Defendant is to give notice.
This action arises out of Plaintiff, Cristian Delgado Barrera (“Plaintiff”)’s prior employment with Defendant, Albertsons, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that he was hired as a “Laborer” on March 12, 2018 and that he developed a “serious physical disability” on April 22, 2018 which restricted his working ability and “finite time off.” Plaintiff further alleges that immediately after receiving approval for disability leave, he was fired effective June 8, 2018 even though he was physically able to work.
Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the followin