Eddie Ruiz Caro v. Brenda Franklin et al
Summary of facts:
The complaint alleges Mr. Caro was employed by Betty Lou Moneyhun and asserts various wage and hour claims and Labor Code violations. Ms. Moneyhun is deceased and Defendant Brenda Franklin is now the Trustee of the Moneyhun trust. She cross-complains for financial elder abuse. She alleges Ms. Moneyhun, a devout Christian, allowed Mr. Caro, who lived across the street, to live in her home after he fell on hard times. He eventually moved his wife and child into the premises and “took over”. Ms. Moneyhun had no need for an attendant – she allowed Plaintiff in her home out of compassion and generosity. Caro and his family lived rent free, ate her food, and allegedly engaged in misconduct by damaging her property and abusing their benefactor.
Most of the production demands concern the Moneyhun trust. Plaintiff argues these are relevant to show testamentary intent, but does not clearly explain why such intent is relevant to either
Hearing Date
December 22, 2016
Type
Other Employment Complaint (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Eddie Ruiz Caro v. Brenda Franklin et al
Summary of facts:
The complaint alleges Mr. Caro was employed by Betty Lou Moneyhun and asserts various wage and hour claims and Labor Code violations. Ms. Moneyhun is deceased and Defendant Brenda Franklin is now the Trustee of the Moneyhun trust. She cross-complains for financial elder abuse. She alleges Ms. Moneyhun, a devout Christian, allowed Mr. Caro, who lived across the street, to live in her home after he fell on hard times. He eventually moved his wife and child into the premises and “took over”. Ms. Moneyhun had no need for an attendant – she allowed Plaintiff in her home out of compassion and generosity. Caro and his family lived rent free, ate her food, and allegedly engaged in misconduct by damaging her property and abusing their benefactor.
Most of the production demands concern the Moneyhun trust. Plaintiff argues these are relevant to show testamentary intent, but does not clearly explain why such intent is relevant to either