Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Southwest District
Torrance Dept. M
KATHLEEN RUIZ, Plaintiff,
Case No.: YC073179 vs. [Tentative] RULING
MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.
Hearing Date: December 4, 2020
Moving Parties: Plaintiff Kathleen Ruiz
Responding Party: Defendants Marymount California University and Lucas Lamadrid
Motion for Reconsideration
The court considered the moving and opposition papers.
RULING
The motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On October 1, 2018, plaintiff Kathleen Ruiz filed a complaint against defendants Marymount California University (“MCU”), Lucas Lamadrid, and Brian Marcotte.
On March 29, 2019, Marcotte was dismissed.
On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint against MCU for (1) sex/gender/marital status discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) hostile work environment harassment because of sex/gender in violation of FEHA; (3) quid pro quo sex/gender harassment in violation of FEHA; (4) retalia
Hearing Date
December 04, 2020
Type
Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Southwest District
Torrance Dept. M
KATHLEEN RUIZ, Plaintiff,
Case No.: YC073179 vs. [Tentative] RULING
MARYMOUNT CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.
Hearing Date: December 4, 2020
Moving Parties: Plaintiff Kathleen Ruiz
Responding Party: Defendants Marymount California University and Lucas Lamadrid
Motion for Reconsideration
The court considered the moving and opposition papers.
RULING
The motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On October 1, 2018, plaintiff Kathleen Ruiz filed a complaint against defendants Marymount California University (“MCU”), Lucas Lamadrid, and Brian Marcotte.
On March 29, 2019, Marcotte was dismissed.
On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint against MCU for (1) sex/gender/marital status discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) hostile work environment harassment because of sex/gender in violation of FEHA; (3) quid pro quo sex/gender harassment in violation of FEHA; (4) retalia