Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party

QUIANA FOLEY VS SB BOOKS

(2) Wrongful Termination Foley’s second cause of action is for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. “‘[W]hile an at-will employee may be terminated for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational reason, there can be no right to terminate for an unlawful reason or a purpose that contravenes fundamental public policy.’ [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2015

QUIANA FOLEY V. S B BOOKS, INC., ET AL.

Section 47 does not require or forbid making police reports, and at best only alludes to a special status for reports to law enforcement, which is insufficient to create wrongful termination liability. Defendants assert that case law also does not establish public policies sufficient to support a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Hagberg case cited by plaintiff is unrelated to wrongful termination. In Gantt v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2015

MICHAEL M. PRICE, MD V. RICHARD D. SCHEINBERG, MD, INC.

Defendants demur to the cause of action, contending that plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim has no basis in any statutory violation, given that his Section 1102.5 retaliation claim fails as a matter of law and cannot support his wrongful termination claim, citing Love v. Motion Indus., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2004) 309 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1135.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

GARRETT BURKHART VS BORIS ZAK ET AL

Defendants seek to strike the allegations of punitive damages contained in paragraphs 59 and 60 in the third cause of action (wrongful termination), in paragraph 85 in the seventh cause of action (misclassification), and in the prayer.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2014

CARLOS CIFUENTES VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION ET AL

Wrongful termination cause of action. The Court agrees with the argument presented by Costco in its Points and Authorities filed March 10, 2010, at pages 6 through 9. The Court did not find Cifuentes’ argument in his Points and Authorities filed on May 25, 2010, at pages 11 through 17 persuasive. 2nd C/A. Defamation. The Court agrees with the argument made by Costco on this issue in its Points and Authorities at pages 10 and 11.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2010

DAWN HOLMES, PHD V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The plaintiff asserted causes of action for wrongful termination, breach of contract and promissory estoppel. (Ibid.) The trial court sustained the demurrer to each of these causes of action on the grounds that public employment is governed by statute not contract, and that claims based on misrepresentation were subject to the immunity of Government Code section 818.8. (Ibid.) On appeal, the Piccinini court affirmed the dismissals of the causes of action for wrongful termination and breach of contract.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

DAVID MARSHALL VS ESPRIDA CORPORATION

Background: This is an action for breach of contract and wrongful termination. Plaintiff David Marshall filed his complaint alleging breach of contract on August 20, 2010. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on January 3, 2011. The FAC alleges that Marshall entered into a written employment agreement with defendant Esprida Corporation (“Esprida”). (FAC, ¶ 12.) Esprida is a technology company organized as a Delaware corporation and headquartered in Canada. (FAC, ¶¶ 4, 10.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2011

OMAR RODRIGUEZ VS MIGUEL CRISTALES

Plaintiff’s causes of action are 1) unpaid overtime wages, 2) violation of Labor Code § 203 – payment of wages due upon termination, 3) violation of Labor Code § 206 – accurate wage statements, 4) misclassification as an independent contractor, 5) expense reimbursement, 6) unfair business practices, and 7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. CMC is set for April 24, MSC for May 25, and trial for June 12, 2012.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2012

WILLIAM BROWN VS ONTRAPORT ET AL

On January 14, 2014, plaintiff filed suit against Ontraport and Requist for discrimination in violation of California�s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Shortly after the action was filed, the parties met and agreed to settle the matter. Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiff agreed to cooperate and join in a motion by defendants to seal the case file.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2014

NANCY DEWI VS TE CONNECTIVITY ET AL

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleges causes of action against TE and two of its managers for (1) discrimination, (2) harassment, (3) retaliation, (4) failure to prevent harassment, (5) failure to accommodate disability, (6) failure to engage in interactive process, (7) violation of the California Family Rights Act, (8) retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act, (9) wrongful termination, and (10) failure to pay wages due.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2013

XXXXXXXXXX VS TE CONNECTIVITY ET AL

BACKGROUND This is an action for alleged discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination. As alleged in the complaint, plaintiff was born in Indonesia and is ethnic Chinese. Plaintiff suffers from multiple disabilities, including a back injury, claustrophobia, and a facial deformity and speech disorder resulting from a cleft palate.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2012

RACHEL MOON V. OSF MEDICAL GROUP OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.

., (5) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of Government Code Section 12940(k), (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (9) unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in connection with the first seven causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2016

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL. V. CDM SMITH, INC.

Schock filed with the City a formal claim for wrongful termination and a demand for payment as to seven items totaling $643,413.56. (Ibid.) The October 7 letter states: “Schock argues that it constructed the Project as designed and that because the City does not point to any construction defect, Schock should be relieved of its performance obligations under the contract.

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2018

STAN A VS WELLS FARGO & COMPANY ET AL

Wrongful Termination and Breach of Employment Contract Plaintiff sets forth three causes of action (the seventh, eighth and ninth) alleging breach of the employment contract between plaintiff and Wells Fargo. Plaintiff’s wrongful termination cause of action (the seventh) is based upon plaintiff’s allegation that by the express or implied terms of the contract, Wells Fargo would not fire plaintiff on account of plaintiff’s disclosures. (FAC, ¶ 70.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2011

KOOSHAREM LLC V. SSST HOLDINGS LLC

The operative complaint in the federal action (federal FAC) asserts 10 causes of action: (1) declaratory relief; (2) injunctive relief; (3) libel per se; (4) breach of contract; (5) injunctive relief; (6) conversion; (7) wrongful termination; (8) promissory fraud and fraud in the inducement; (9) violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; and, (10) fraud.

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2015

DAVID NORTON V. SAGE NETWORK, INC.

(Sage), for age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), harassment/hostile work environment (FEHA), failure to investigate or prevent harassment (FEHA), wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and declaratory judgment. Norton alleges: He was Sage’s employee working in Camarillo in Ventura County and Santa Barbara in this Santa Barbara County. His employment was terminated on February 25, 2019, after a complaint of sexual harassment by another employee.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

YUSUF LEWIS VS VALLEY SLURRY SEAL CO ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Change Venue This is a motion to change venue Ruling: Denied Analysis: The complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation [FEHA]; (2) national origin/race harassment, discrimination and retaliation; (3) wrongful termination and retaliation).

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2010

NICK CAI V. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.4th 1716, 1726 (1996) (holding that trial court should have sustained the college’s demurrer to a complaint for wrongful termination, breach of contract, and breach of implied covenants). This decision would apply equally to student discipline proceedings. But exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Patsy v. Bd. of Regents of State of Fla., 457 U.S. 496, 501 (1982). The Supremacy Clause of the U.S.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2015

RAYMOND GRANGER VS SKATE ONE CORPORATION ET AL

Argument First, plaintiff’s claims for disability discrimination, age discrimination, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy lack merit, because defendant had legitimate, non- discriminatory reasons for plaintiff’s termination.

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2011

NANCY DEWI VS TE CONNECTIVITY ET AL

termination in violation f public policy (defendants Tyco), 9) failure to pay wages due (defendants Tyco).

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2012

SANTA BARBARA NISSAN, LLC V. JUSTIN DAMARIN

The broad language of the agreement covered the wrongful termination claim. Id. There is no comparable “past, present, or future” language in Damarin’s agreement. Similarly, in Gillian v. Cowabunga, Inc., 2018 WL 2431345 (N.D. Ala. 2018), the agreement provided that it “shall survive termination of Employee’s employment.” Id. at *3. In Masse v. Waffle House, 2014 WL 1901112 (W.D.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2019

CARLOS CIFUENTES VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION ET AL

In Lisec, after a judgment awarding damages for wrongful termination, the former employer/judgment debtor – United Airlines – “paid the amount of the judgment minus withholdings for state and federal income and Social Security taxes.” The judgment creditors (“Lisec”) “refused to acknowledge full satisfaction of the judgment, claiming that the damages were neither wages nor earned income and therefore were not subject to withholding.” Id. at 1501-1502.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2013

CIFUENTES VS COSTCO

Complaint (filed 7/2009) [verified] for wrongful termination. After summary adjudication Plaintiff proceeds on the following two causes of action against Costco only; the individual defendants (Tom Current, Jim Blount, and Ronald DeBraum), are no longer defendants. 4th – Breach of Contract 5th – Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2010

DAWN HOLMES, PHD V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Holmes reported her wrongful termination to multiple UC officials. (SAC, ¶ 96.) None of them advised her that she needed to submit a written complaint if she wanted to make an internal whistleblower complaint (SAC, ¶ 121), nor did any of the UC whistleblower complaint policies or procedures she reviewed during that time advise her of the need to do so. (SAC, ¶ 122.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2017

MARTHA TORRES ET AL VS SANTA BARBARA METROPOLITAN ETC ET AL

termination in violation of public policy (Torres only against MTD).

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2013

1 2     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.