9/17/20
Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding
AMBER GARCIA v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. (BC700462)
Counsel for Plaintiff/opposing party: Carney Shegerian, Anthony Nguyen, Daniel Henderson (Shegerian & Associates)
Counsel for Defendants/moving parties: Robert Bernstein, Ryan Bykerk (Greenberg Traurig)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (filed 10/3/19)
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s objections:
“Procedural” objections: 1: Sustained. 2: Overruled.
Evidentiary objections:
1-17, 21-29: Overruled.
18: Sustained, in part, as to the phrase: “In other words, Plaintiff did not request a further extension of her leave or any other accommodation at that time.”
19: Sustained in part as to the words “inconsistent” and “speculated.” (Objection no. 19 incorrectly refers to SSUMF #45. Plaintiff’s opposing separate statement no. 45 should be no 44.)
20: Sustained in part as to the word “speculated.” (Objection no. 20 incorrectly refers to SSUMF #46. Plaintiff’s opposing
Hearing Date
September 17, 2020
Type
Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
9/17/20
Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding
AMBER GARCIA v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. (BC700462)
Counsel for Plaintiff/opposing party: Carney Shegerian, Anthony Nguyen, Daniel Henderson (Shegerian & Associates)
Counsel for Defendants/moving parties: Robert Bernstein, Ryan Bykerk (Greenberg Traurig)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (filed 10/3/19)
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s objections:
“Procedural” objections: 1: Sustained. 2: Overruled.
Evidentiary objections:
1-17, 21-29: Overruled.
18: Sustained, in part, as to the phrase: “In other words, Plaintiff did not request a further extension of her leave or any other accommodation at that time.”
19: Sustained in part as to the words “inconsistent” and “speculated.” (Objection no. 19 incorrectly refers to SSUMF #45. Plaintiff’s opposing separate statement no. 45 should be no 44.)
20: Sustained in part as to the word “speculated.” (Objection no. 20 incorrectly refers to SSUMF #46. Plaintiff’s opposing