Preview
Julian Burns King (Bar No. 298617) 1 julian@kingsiegel.com 2 Andrea Obando (Bar No. 312640) andrea@kingsiegel.com 3 KING & SIEGEL LLP 555 University Ave., Suite 220 4 Sacramento, CA 95825 tel: (213) 465-4802 5 fax: (213) 465-4803 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Donna Henderson 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 9 Donna Henderson, an individual, CASE NO.10 Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:11 vs.12 1) Disability Discrimination in Mars, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Violation of FEHA;13 Mars Wrigley Confectionary US, 2) Harassment in Violation of LLC; a Delaware limit liability company; FEHA;14 Jean-Philippe Marelli, a California 3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; resident; and Does 1-10, inclusive, 4) Failure to Prevent15 Discrimination, Harassment,16 Defendants. and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA;17 5) Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA;18 6) Failure to Engage in the Good Faith Interactive Process in19 Violation of Public Policy20 7) Retaliation in Violation of the CFRA;21 8) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and22 9) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.52324 Demand for Jury Trial25262728 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 Plaintiff Donna Henderson (“Plaintiff” or “Dr. Henderson”) hereby brings this ac- 2 tion against Defendants Mars, Inc., Mars Wrigley Confectionary US, LLC (collectively with 3 Mars, Inc., “Mars”), Jean-Philippe Marelli, and Does 1-10 (collectively, “Defendants”) and 4 alleges as follows by and through her counsel of record: 5 INTRODUCTION 6 1. Plaintiff Donna Henderson holds as M.S. in Plant Science and a Ph.D. in 7 Plant Pathology from Washington State University. She is an expert in biotechnology and 8 has spent 15+ years leading research terms in the agricultural and biotechnology indus- 9 tries. At Mars, Dr. Henderson transformed the way the company cultivated the cacao plant10 and invented and implemented technology to help farmers monitor the health of their ca-11 cao plants. Dr. Henderson and her peers are responsible for the health of the plants that12 yield Mars’ leading chocolate products.13 1. Dr. Henderson was a strong employee who received performance-based in-14 centives after each of her first three review cycles. Indeed, in late 2021, her supervisor15 tapped her for consideration for a promotion into a newly vacant role.16 2. These discussions were immediately abandoned once Dr. Henderson began17 suffering from what she would later learn was a rare form of blood cancer. Her supervisor18 asked invasive questions about her diagnosis, began scrutinizing her job performance, and19 otherwise created a hostile work environment for her—all while she was facing a life-threat-20 ening diagnosis and undergoing extensive diagnostic testing for a rare and mysterious dis-21 ability.22 3. In or around November 2022, Dr. Henderson formally complained about her23 supervisor’s discrimination to Mars’s corporate Human Resources department. After a cur-24 sory investigation, Mars asked her to withdraw the complaint. Dr. Henderson declined.25 Within weeks, her supervisor rated her as “below expectations” for the first time in over26 three years at Mars. During the meeting to review her evaluation, he explicitly addressed27 her complaint of discrimination, accusing her of “know[ing] [the complaint] wasn’t true.”28 Her supervisor refused to talk to Dr. Henderson for the next few months. 1 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 4. Around the same time that Dr. Henderson declined to withdraw her com- 2 plaint, she provided Mars with multiple notes from her doctors, all of which confirmed that 3 she needed the reasonable accommodations of working from home and limited exposure 4 to pathogens. These accommodations should not have presented any problems for Mars: 5 indeed, Dr. Henderson had been working from home successfully for at least two years. 6 Nonetheless, Mars denied Dr. Henderson permission to work from home. Instead, Mars 7 told her she could take a non-job protected extended medical leave, which she did. 8 5. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Henderson attended a Mars-facilitated mediation with 9 her supervisor. During the mediation, her supervisor agreed to support her transfer to an-10 other department. Dr. Henderson reached out to other departments and identified a role11 for which she was qualified. After the mediation, the mediator changed course and told Dr.12 Henderson that it would be best if she left the Company.13 6. Rather than permitting Dr. Henderson to transfer to another department,14 Mars fired her on May 16, 2023—barely six months after she requested accommodation15 and made protected complaints of discrimination. Mars claimed that Dr. Henderson was16 fired for failing to live up to “mediation parameters,” taking a planned vacation with “too17 little notice,” and showing up late for meetings. This was false. In reality, Dr. Henderson18 was fired because of her disability, her protected requests for accommodation, and her pro-19 tected complaints of discrimination.20 THE PARTIES21 7. Plaintiff Donna Henderson is a resident of the County of Sacramento in22 the State of California. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from October 2019, until her termi-23 nation on May 16, 2023. Dr. Henderson served as a Principal Scientist Pathology. In this24 role, she was responsible for developing and leading global teams on a variety of topics25 related to the cocoa plant, including disease, pest management, and breeding. Plaintiff was26 also charged with implementing various programs and building capital projects. Beginning27 no later than 2022, Dr. Henderson was disabled, suffering from a serious health condition,28 and able to perform the essential functions of her job with accommodations. 2 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 8. Defendant Mars, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of 2 business located at 6885 Elm Street, McLean, Virginia 22101 and is authorized to conduct 3 business in California. Defendant is an American multinational manufacturer of confec- 4 tionery, pet food, and other food products. 5 9. Defendant Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC is a foreign limited li- 6 ability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Mars Wrigley Confec- 7 tionery US, LLC has its principal place of business at 1132 W. Blackhawk Street, Chicago, 8 Illinois 60642 and a subsidiary to Mars, Inc. 9 10. Defendant Jean-Philippe Marelli is a resident of California. On infor-10 mation and belief, he is a resident of Yolo County. Marelli supervised Dr. Henderson at all11 times relevant hereto.12 11. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as Does 113 through 10, inclusive (hereinafter “Doe Defendants,” collectively, “Defendants” or “Mars”),14 are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this suit against them by15 fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiff believes that16 each of the Doe Defendants is a California resident and/or does substantial business in the17 State of California. At all relevant times, Does 1 through 10 were acting within the course18 and scope of their employment and agency with Defendant Defendants. Plaintiff is in-19 formed and believes that each Doe Defendant is responsible for the injuries and damages20 alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to reflect Does 1 through 10’s true names21 and capacities when they have been determined.22 12. Except as otherwise noted herein, Defendants participated in the acts alleged23 herein and/or were the agents, servants, employees, joint-employers, or representatives of24 the other Defendants. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants were acting within25 the course, scope, and authority of their agency and employment such that the acts of one26 Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants. Defendants, in all respects,27 acted as employers and/or joint employers of Plaintiff in that each of them exercised con-28 trol over the wages, hours, or working conditions of their non-exempt employees. 3 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 VENUE AND JURISDICTION 2 13. The court has jurisdiction over all causes of action in this complaint pursuant 3 to Article VI, § 10 of the California Constitution. No federal question is at issue; Plaintiff 4 relies solely on California statutes and law. 5 14. Venue as to Defendants is proper in this Superior Court pursuant to Califor- 6 nia Code of Civil Procedure § 395. The unlawful acts alleged have directly affected Dr. Hen- 7 derson in Sacramento County, where she worked and earned wages as discussed herein. 8 Finally, Business & Professions Code § 17204 provides that any person acting on her own 9 behalf may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court10 maintains appropriate jurisdiction over this dispute.11 FACTUAL BACKGROUND12 Dr. Henderson Excels as a Principal Pathologist13 15. Dr. Henderson was hired by Mars in October 2019 as a Principal Scientist14 Pathology stationed out of the Mars facility in Davis, California. Dr. Henderson’s role fo-15 cused on the cocoa plant, and she was primarily responsible for providing program leader-16 ship related to pest management for Defendants’ cocoa crops. Her responsibilities included17 building infrastructure to enable teams to solve disease problems, developing innovative18 methodologies for plant pathology research, and otherwise playing a critical role in cocoa19 pest research at Mars.20 16. For three years, Dr. Henderson excelled in her role. Her successes included21 implementing a breeding program that reduced the breeding timeline for the cocoa plant,22 creating data strategy solutions that allowed Mars to make data driven solutions more23 quickly and efficiently, and overseeing the construction and development of a new farm24 facility.25 17. From 2019 to 2021, each of her performance reviews reflected her outstand-26 ing leadership. In 2019, her manager, Jean-Philippe Marelli, commended Dr. Henderson27 for being “pro-active and curious” and “keen to share knowledge but also learn from oth-28 ers.” In 2020, Marelli acknowledged her successes with respect to data strategy solutions 4 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 and the breeding program, and he commended her “great progress in getting buy[-]in for 2 her projects.” 3 18. In 2021, Marelli described Dr. Henderson’s year as “excellent” and “really 4 focused on delivering results and being agile.” He noted her leadership in bringing teams 5 together and fostering an environment that “allowed for better collaborations overall,” 6 and he was enthusiastic about her “showcas[ing] her expertise and know-how” in the com- 7 ing year. 1 Dr. Henderson shared Marelli’s enthusiasm, stating in her self-review that she 8 “genuinely appreciate[d] [her supervisor, Jean-Philippe Morelli’s] support, leadership 9 style, and friendship. . . . I also wanted to say that I really appreciate the opportunity to be10 on this team! I think that our team is poised to do great things and I have so much enthu-11 siasm for what is to come.”12 19. Marelli rated Dr. Henderson as achieving objectives in each of her reviews13 from 2019 to 2021, as a result of which Dr. Henderson received performance-based com-14 pensation incentives for each of those years.15 20. Dr. Henderson performed so well that, in or around January 2022, Joanna16 Hwu, Senior Director of Cocoa Plant Science and Operations (and Marelli’s supervisor),17 told Dr. Henderson that she was a candidate for Associate Director of Foundational Data18 Science, a position previously held by Michael Yea.19 21. Within two months of this conversation, Dr. Henderson began to suffer from20 unexplained symptoms of a then-undiagnosed disability. Her disability completely de-21 railed her opportunity to achieve this promotion, as well as Mars’s perception of her ability22 to thrive in her role. Ultimately, Mars fired her for it.23 1 Despite her achievements at Mars, Marelli gave Dr. Henderson a goal of improving24 her “approachability” for the 2021 year. In discussing this goal with Dr. Henderson, Ma-25 relli told her that she was “too direct” and “too forward.” He called her “cold,” “unfeeling,” and “unapproachable”—terms that typically reflect gender-based stereotypes of how a26 woman should or should not behave. He suggested that she shadow another female col- league to learn how to “be like her.” This goal was memorialized in her 2021 evaluation as27 an objective of learning to be “warm[,] pleasant and gracious” in the coming year.28 5 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 Dr. Henderson Begins to Experience Health Problems and 2 Immediately Falls Out of Favor With Her Supervisors 3 22. In or around March 2022, Dr. Henderson traveled to Ecuador with Marelli 4 for a business trip. During the trip, Dr. Henderson suffered from a bout of insomnia and 5 night sweats that lasted approximately six days. She felt ill throughout the trip and began 6 to suffer serious and persistent symptoms, including nausea, gastrointestinal issues, and 7 body aches, that she would later learn were caused by a rare blood cancer. 8 23. Dr. Henderson shared these serious symptoms with Marelli. He responded 9 by informing her that this was a rare opportunity to impress Hwu and that she needed to10 be “spot-on” throughout her presentation.11 24. During that same trip, Hwu requested that Dr. Henderson practice with her12 via video for a TechComm presentation, scheduled for May 2022, that Dr. Henderson was13 set to deliver to the billionaire family that owns Mars. Despite feeling fatigued and nause-14 ated, Dr. Henderson participated in the virtual practice session with Hwu at around mid-15 night.16 25. Upon her return from Ecuador, Dr. Henderson continued to struggle with her17 health. She tried her best to complete TechComm practice presentations with Hwu, even18 though these practice sessions often involved spending four to five hours in a hot, humid19 greenhouse and exacerbated Dr. Henderson’s exhaustion, nausea, and body aches. 220 26. Dr. Henderson raised concerns about the heat of the greenhouse to Mars per-21 sonnel, including concerns that Mars did not have a heat safety policy, as required by22 OSHA. Dr. Henderson even created guidelines for Mars related to indoor heat and safety.23 Mars did not follow them.24 27. As a result of her illness and the hot, humid conditions inside the greenhouse25 (the humidity was often set at 100%), Dr. Henderson had to take sick leave one day, which2627 2 Dr. Henderson frequently had to lean against the air conditioner during breaks to28 try to cool off and minimize her symptoms. 6 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 resulted in her missing a TechComm preparation session with Hwu. Shortly after this prep 2 session, Dr. Henderson discussed the Associate Director promotion with Marelli. He indi- 3 cated that the “perception” of Dr. Henderson had changed and that she needed to “recover” 4 Hwu’s favor after missing TechComm practice sessions due to illness. 5 28. Dr. Henderson presented at TechComm as planned in or around May 2022. 6 Her presentation was well-received by all stakeholders, including Hwu. However, even as 7 she commended Dr. Henderson’s performance, Hwu complained to her about her “prepa- 8 ration,” referring to Dr. Henderson’s absences during the preparation cycle. 9 29. Around the same time, Dr. Henderson reached out to a colleague at Mars and10 explained that things had gone sideways since her trip to Ecuador with Morelli. Hwu had11 scheduled “two concerned meetings with me, then wrote me an email saying she may need12 to go another direction with my talk. All of this after [Hwu] offered me a succession plan13 for [the Associate Director] job… this was before my sickness/perception I am slacking off.14 Now [Morelli] says I have a perception problem and need to wait on succession planning.”15 30. Dr. Henderson did not receive the promotion to Associate Director.16 Dr. Henderson is Diagnosed with Blood Cancer and Mars17 Refuses to Accommodate Her18 31. Throughout 2022, Dr. Henderson’s health deteriorated. In or around July19 2022, while she was undergoing broader diagnostic testing to determine the underlying20 cause of her sudden medical issues, Dr. Henderson received a diagnosis of Attention Deficit21 Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), which she revealed to Hwu. This disability may have22 been a symptom of her underlying medical condition, which affected her ability to focus.23 32. On or around August 12, 2022, Dr. Henderson submitted a request for ac-24 commodations related to her ADHD diagnosis, including: the ability to work from home,25 flexibility in her workload and schedule, and a flexible schedule and length of stay during26 international travel. Mars did not respond to these requests until November 9, 2022, al-27 most three months later.28 33. In August 2022, Mars forced Dr. Henderson to attend an in-person meeting 7 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 at Mars. Dr. Henderson has asthma and raised concerns to Marelli about attending in per- 2 son because her asthma would make her more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. Despite 3 allowing others to attend remotely, Mars made Dr. Henderson attend in person. 4 34. Her concerns were justified: Dr. Henderson contracted COVID-19 after the 5 in-person meeting at Mars. Her COVID-19 infection led to pneumonia, for which she was 6 ultimately hospitalized for approximately two weeks. 7 35. While receiving treatment for pneumonia, Dr. Henderson was diagnosed 8 with a rare blood cancer: chronic eosinophilic leukemia, the cause of her ongoing health 9 issues. Dr. Henderson’s providers started her on a medication that suppressed her immune10 system and made her vulnerable to pathogens. While she received treatment, her providers11 certified her for medical leave under the FMLA/CFRA until approximately September 29,12 2022, which Mars approved.13 36. Dr. Henderson’s providers also imposed several restrictions, including work-14 ing from home for at least twelve months and limited international travel, so as to avoid15 exposure to workplace pathogens; limiting most forms of exertion, including long distance16 walking, running, lifting, and bending; and taking intermittent leave as needed to manage17 her symptoms. Prior to making her request for accommodation, Dr. Henderson had been18 working from home full-time from approximately March 2020 through May 2022 without19 any interference or impact on her ability to perform her job.20 37. On November 9, 2022, Mars responded to Dr. Henderson’s requests for ac-21 commodation by informing her unequivocally that Mars would not approve her to work22 from home after December 31, 2022. Mars made it clear that if Dr. Henderson was unable23 to return to work in person or travel internationally, she would need to take an extended24 medical leave and that if she went on such a leave, Mars would “not be able to hold [her]25 position.”26 38. On November 15, 2022, Ms. Henderson’s doctor wrote to Mars to reiterate27 that Dr. Henderson had been “diagnosed with a life-threatening disease,” as a result of28 which the provider again requested that Dr. Henderson be accommodated, “as her health 8 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 [was] at risk with the duties that she describe[d], such as international travel, greenhouse 2 exposure, among others.” 3 39. On November 21, 2022, Dr. Henderson’s doctor sent another note emphasiz- 4 ing the same concerns and recommending that Dr. Henderson work from home, as her 5 main work restrictions involved international travel and working in environments that in- 6 volved greenhouse exposure—none of which should have posed a problem for Mars since 7 Dr. Henderson and Mars had successfully worked with similar limitations during the 8 COVID-19 pandemic and during the majority of Dr. Henderson’s tenure at Mars. 9 40. Despite these requests from Dr. Henderson’s providers, Mars stood by its10 unilateral refusal to accommodate her. Mars did not suggest any alternatives to Dr. Hen-11 derson. In doing so, Mars gave Dr. Henderson an impossible choice: return to work and12 risk her life, or stay home and risk her livelihood.13 41. Afraid to lose her job and her health insurance while in the middle of a life-14 threatening diagnosis for which she was actively receiving medical care, Dr. Henderson15 offered—after no suggestions of alternatives from Mars or any attempt to engage in an in-16 teractive process—to return to work with limited travel, a hybrid in-office schedule, and17 non-rigorous field work. Mars categorically refused this request until Dr. Henderson pro-18 vided an updated doctor’s note that reflected the suggestions Dr. Henderson offered. At19 Mars’s insistence, she submitted revised medical documentation on or around December20 22, 2022. Only then did Mars allow her to return to work—under accommodations that it21 essentially pre-approved by refusing to allow her to return to work until she submitted doc-22 umentation supporting accommodations that Mars would agree to23 Marelli Harasses Dr. Henderson Based on her Disability24 42. Throughout Dr. Henderson’s illness, Mars discriminated against her, har-25 assed her, and—when she complained about its mistreatment of her—retaliated against26 her.27 43. Around the spring and summer of 2022, when Dr. Henderson first began to28 suffer symptoms of her as-yet undiagnosed blood cancer, Marelli began to ask invasive 9 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 questions about Dr. Henderson’s health during their weekly one-on-one meetings. He re- 2 peatedly asked her to get a diagnosis or explain her undiagnosed illness through a lens of 3 psychological behavior, and he frequently directed her to use the Employee Assistance Pro- 4 gram for behavioral services. 5 44. In or around July 2022, when Dr. Henderson received a diagnosis of ADHD, 6 she decided to reveal her diagnosis to Hwu rather than Marelli because of Marelli’s persis- 7 tent questioning, which made her uncomfortable. When Marelli learned of her diagnosis 8 from Hwu, he became more hostile with Dr. Henderson and accused her of going above 9 him to his boss. During one meeting, he pressured her to reveal her diagnosis and, under10 the premise of evaluating her for her mid-year review, asked her to categorize her behavior11 as her “good personality traits like courage etc. versus [her] illness.” When Dr. Henderson12 told Marelli that his questions were making her uncomfortable, he responded by telling her13 that he would be “assessing [her] performance on the facts [he had].” Dr. Henderson rea-14 sonably feared that her performance review would suffer because of her ongoing health15 issues.16 45. Marelli’s callousness continued even as Dr. Henderson grappled with her di-17 agnosis. For much of 2022, Marelli outright refused to speak to Dr. Henderson, instead18 choosing to pass communications through colleagues or telling her that he would speak to19 her after they attended a mediation facilitated by a Mars mediator. He declined to meet20 with her to discuss her performance goals for the 2023 year.21 46. On one occasion, Dr. Henderson successfully presented her research and re-22 ceived a score of 9 out of 10 from the reviewing group, the highest ever during her tenure23 at Mars, and almost double the scores of 4 or 5 typically awarded. Rather than acknowledge24 her significant accomplishment, Marelli left the presentation without comment.25 47. In a check-in meeting following the presentation, Dr. Henderson requested26 support from Marelli in light of her ongoing health issues. Marelli interrupted and talked27 over her, at one point telling her that it was “not his problem to hear about it.”28 48. Around the same time, Marelli interrupted a presentation Dr. Henderson was 10 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 giving by jumping up and waving his arms in her face while she was presenting. His behav- 2 ior was so out of line that a virtual attendee of the meeting later asked Dr. Henderson about 3 the incident. 4 Dr. Henderson Complains About Marelli’s Harassment and Discrimination, 5 and Mars Promptly Retaliates 6 49. On or around November 9, 2022, Dr. Henderson complained about Marelli’s 7 harassment and consideration of gender and illness in his evaluations of her performance. 8 By that point, Marelli’s conduct had become so hostile that Dr. Henderson frequently ex- 9 perienced anxiety attacks whenever she had to interact with him. Dr. Henderson repeatedly10 complained to Mars personnel about the anxiety that the working environment was causing11 her.12 50. On information and belief, Mars did not interview any colleagues in connec-13 tion with her complaint. Nonetheless, Mars concluded that it could not substantiate her14 claims. Mars invited Dr. Henderson to attend mediation with Marelli, to which Dr. Hen-15 derson responded by asking that it be postponed until after she had come to terms with her16 cancer diagnosis. Mars then asked her to withdraw her complaint. Dr. Henderson declined17 to do so.18 51. In December 2022, Marelli did precisely as Dr. Henderson feared he would:19 he rated her as below expectations on her 2022 review—the first time Dr. Henderson had20 ever received such a rating at Mars. During a meeting with Marelli and Hwu to discuss her21 2022 evaluation, Marelli specifically complained that Dr. Henderson had gone to Human22 Resources regarding his discriminatory treatment of her.23 52. Dr. Henderson submitted written comments in response to Marelli’s review,24 complaining again that Marelli was discriminating against her and complaining that Ma-25 relli was retaliating against her for her prior complaint. On information and belief, Mars26 did nothing to investigate these complaints. Mars informed her that her performance re-27 view would not be adjusted.28 53. In February 2023, Dr. Henderson and Marelli attended a two-day mediation 11 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 session overseen by a Mars employee. At the beginning of the session, the mediator in- 2 formed Dr. Henderson that nothing discussed in the mediation would go into Dr. Hender- 3 son’s personnel file or result in any discipline. This was false. 4 54. During the session, Dr. Henderson suggested that she could transfer to a dif- 5 ferent department and requested Marelli’s support in doing so. Marelli agreed to provide 6 it. Despite Marelli’s agreement, the mediator told Dr. Henderson during the mediation and 7 in subsequent interactions that it might be time for her to “cut her losses” and leave Mars. 8 55. After the mediation, Dr. Henderson had conversations with the manager of 9 the Mints, Nuts, and Flavor Department at Mars about research projects that fit Dr. Hen-10 derson’s skill set. The department had recently gone from approximately fifteen people to11 approximately two people. On or around Friday, May 12, 2023, Dr. Henderson emailed12 Marelli about transitioning into the Mints, Nuts, and Flavor Department. The next business13 day, May 15, 2023, Dr. Henderson was informed there were no open positions for her in14 that department.15 56. On Monday, May 16, 2023—only three months after her mediation with Ma-16 relli and without any warning, a performance improvement plan, or any progressive disci-17 pline—Mars terminated Dr. Henderson’s employment. Mars cited Dr. Henderson’s failure18 to adhere to goals established during the mediation as the reason for her termination, de-19 spite the explicit representation that the session would not be the basis for any disciplinary20 actions.21 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES22 57. Dr. Henderson has exhausted all administrative remedies required as a pre-23 requisite to bringing this action. On March 28, 2024, Dr. Henderson filed a complaint of24 discrimination against Defendants with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing25 (“DFEH”) and obtained a right-to-sue letter, attached as Exhibit A, authorizing her to en-26 force her rights through a civil action.2728 12 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 CAUSES OF ACTION 2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 3 Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA 4 Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq. 5 (Plaintiff Against the Mars Defendants) 6 58. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the 7 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 8 59. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act provides that it is unlawful 9 for “an employer, because of the . . physical disability . . . [or] medical condition . . . of any10 person . . . to discharge the person from employment, . . . or to discriminate against the11 person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Gov. Code12 §§ 12940(a).13 60. Dr. Henderson was “disabled” within the meaning of the FEHA at all times14 relevant to this complaint. Accordingly, she was protected from discrimination based on15 her medical condition and related disabilities.16 61. Defendants discriminated against Dr. Henderson because of her disability in17 violation of Government Code § 12940(a) by, at a minimum, considering her disability in18 evaluating her performance and subsequently terminating her.19 62. Dr. Henderson’s disability was the sole or motivating factor in Defendants’20 decision to take these adverse employment actions.21 63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Dr. Henderson has22 suffered special damages in the form of lost earnings, benefits, and/or out-of-pocket ex-23 penses in an amount subject to proof at trial. As a further direct and proximate result of24 Defendants’ conduct, Dr. Henderson continues to suffer damages in the form of lost future25 earnings, benefits, and/or other prospective damages in an amount to be proven at trial.26 64. Defendants’ conduct has further caused Dr. Henderson to lose financial sta-27 bility, peace of mind, and future security. Defendants’ conduct has caused her severe em-28 barrassment, humiliation, and mental and emotional distress and discomfort in an amount 13 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 not fully ascertained but subject to proof at trial. 2 65. Because of the conduct alleged herein, Dr. Henderson hired attorneys to 3 prosecute his claims under FEHA. Accordingly, Dr. Henderson is entitled to recover attor- 4 neys’ fees and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), in addition to other damages 5 as provided by law. 6 66. Moreover, Defendants’ conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, ma- 7 licious, reckless, and conducted in callous disregard for Dr. Henderson’s rights, entitling 8 her to punitive damages. 9 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION10 Harassment in Violation of FEHA11 Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq.12 (Plaintiffs Against Defendants)13 67. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the14 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.15 68. The FEHA provides that it is unlawful for an employer to harass an employee16 on the basis of disability or national origin. Harassment consists of “conduct outside the17 scope of necessary job performance, conduct presumably engaged in for personal gratifi-18 cation, because of meanness or bigotry, or for other personal motives.” Reno v. Baird, 1819 Cal.4th 640 (1998) (citations omitted).20 69. Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile and pervasive atmosphere of disability and21 gender-based discrimination, including intrusive questioning about her medical condition22 and threats that she would be evaluated based on these characteristics.23 70. This harassment was so severe and pervasive that it altered the terms and24 conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and created a hostile and abusive work environment.25 71. A reasonable person in Plaintiff’s circ*mstances would have considered the26 work environment to be hostile and/or abusive, and Plaintiff considered her work environ-27 ment to be hostile and/or abusive.28 72. Defendants’ actions constituted a violation of FEHA. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 14 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 1604.11; FEHA Regulations § 7287.6(b). 2 73. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in addition 3 to the practices enumerated above, Defendants may have engaged in other illegal practices 4 against him which are not yet fully known. 5 74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Dr. Henderson has 6 suffered special damages in the form of lost earnings, benefits, and/or out-of-pocket ex- 7 penses in an amount subject to proof at trial. As a further direct and proximate result of 8 Defendants’ conduct, Dr. Henderson continues to suffer damages in the form of lost future 9 earnings, benefits, and/or other prospective damages in an amount to be proven at trial.10 75. Defendants’ conduct has further caused Dr. Henderson to lose financial sta-11 bility, peace of mind, and future security. Defendants’ conduct has caused her severe em-12 barrassment, humiliation, and mental and emotional distress and discomfort in an amount13 not fully ascertained but subject to proof at trial.14 76. Because of the conduct alleged herein, Dr. Henderson hired attorneys to15 prosecute his claims under FEHA. Accordingly, Dr. Henderson is entitled to recover attor-16 neys’ fees and costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), in addition to other damages17 as provided by law.18 77. Moreover, Defendants’ conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, ma-19 licious, reckless, and conducted in callous disregard for Dr. Henderson’s rights, entitling20 her to punitive damages.21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION22 Retaliation in Violation of FEHA23 Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq.24 (Plaintiff Against the Mars Defendants)25 78. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the26 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.27 79. At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff was an employee and was28 covered by FEHA. 15 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 80. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act provides that it is unlawful 2 for “an employer to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because 3 the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has 4 filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.” Gov. Code 5 §§ 12940(h). 6 81. Dr. Henderson was unlawfully retaliated against after making a protected 7 complaint about Mars’s discrimination based on gender and disability. 8 82. Dr. Henderson’s complaints were the sole or motivating reasons in Mars’s 9 decision to terminate her.10 83. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered special11 damages in the form of lost earnings, benefits, and/or out-of-pocket expenses in an amount12 subject to proof at trial. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct,13 Plaintiff continues to suffer damages in the form of lost future earnings, benefits, and/or14 other prospective damages in an amount to be proven at trial.15 84. Defendants’ conduct has further caused Plaintiff to lose financial stability,16 peace of mind, and future security, and has caused her severe embarrassment, humiliation,17 and mental and emotional distress and discomfort in an amount not fully ascertained but18 subject to proof at trial.19 85. Because of the conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff hired attorneys to prosecute20 her claims under FEHA. Accordingly, she is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees21 and costs pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b), in addition to other damages as22 provided by law.23 86. Moreover, Defendants’ conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, ma-24 licious, reckless, and conducted in callous disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, entitling her to25 punitive damages.262728 16 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and 3 Retaliation in Violation of FEHA 4 Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq. 5 (Plaintiff Against the Mars Defendants) 6 87. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the 7 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 8 88. Under FEHA, employers have an affirmative obligation “to take all reasona- 9 ble steps necessary to prevent harassment from occurring.” Gov. Code § 12940(k). In addi-10 tion to taking protective and corrective action, an employer is expressly forbidden from11 retaliating against an employee who complains of a FEHA violation. Gov. Code § 12940.12 Retaliation is any “adverse treatment that is reasonably likely to impair a reasonable em-13 ployee’s job performance or prospects for advancement or promotion.” Light v. Dep’t of14 Parks & Recreation, 14 Cal. App. 5th 75, 91 (2017).15 89. At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff was an applicant for employ-16 ment or an employee of Defendants and was covered by FEHA.17 90. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care pursuant to Government Code18 § 12940(k).19 91. Plaintiff suffered from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at the20 hands of Defendants throughout her employment. Plaintiff’s supervisors were aware of this21 discrimination, but did nothing to stop it. Further, when Plaintiff complained about this22 conduct to Human Resources, Defendants still did not take any efforts to protect Plaintiff,23 instead wrongfully terminating her.24 92. Defendants failed to take all or any reasonable steps necessary to prevent the25 harassment. Specifically, Defendants breached their duty of care to Plaintiff by (1) failing26 to act upon observed discrimination; and (2) failing to act in response to Plaintiff’s com-27 plaint about the discrimination, (3) and retaliating against Plaintiff for complaining.28 93. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered special 17 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 damages in the form of lost earnings, benefits, and/or out-of-pocket expenses in an amount 2 subject to proof at trial. As further direct and proximate results of Defendants’ conduct, 3 Plaintiff continues to suffer damages in the form of lost future earnings, benefits, and/or 4 other prospective damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 5 94. Defendants’ conduct has further caused Plaintiff to lose financial stability, 6 peace of mind, and future security, and has caused her severe embarrassment, humiliation, 7 and mental and emotional distress and discomfort in an amount not fully ascertained but 8 subject to proof at trial. 9 95. Because of the conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff hired attorneys to prosecute10 her claims under FEHA. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and11 costs pursuant to Government Code § 12965(b), in addition to other damages as provided12 by law.13 96. Moreover, Defendants’ conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful, ma-14 licious, reckless, and conducted in callous disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, entitling her to15 punitive damages.16 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION17 Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA18 Gov. Code §§ 12940, et seq.19 (Plaintiff Against the Mars Defendants)20 97. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the21 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.22 98. Defendants failed to accommodate Plaintiff’s medical condition in violation23 of Government Code § 12940(m) by failing to engage in an interactive process upon learn-24 ing about Plaintiffs’ medical conditions and terminating Plaintiff pretextually.25 99. Plaintiff required the reasonable accommodations of limiting her exposure to26 pathogens and working from home for one year.27 100. Plaintiff was able to perform the essential duties of her position with reason-28 18 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 able accommodations, and she had successfully performed the essential duties of her posi- 2 tion with the same limitations—limited exposure to pathogens and working from home— 3 for almost two years. 4 101. Defendants failed to engage in an interactive process over reasonable accom- 5 modation. Instead, Defendants took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff after 6 learning of her medical conditions, up to an including termination. 7 102. As a direct and proximate result of the violation of her rights under the FEHA, 8 Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer general damages in amounts to be proven 9 at trial. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing those damages.10 103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of her rights under11 the FEHA, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer financial losses, including a loss12 of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities. Plaintiff is thereby enti-13 tled to special damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Defendants’ conduct was a sub-14 stantial factor in causing those damages.15 104. As a further, direct, and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of Govern-16 ment Code § 12900 et seq., as heretofore described, Plaintiff has been compelled to retain17 the services of counsel in an effort to enforce the terms and conditions of her employment18 relationship with Defendants, and has thereby incurred, and will continue to incur, legal19 fees and costs, the full nature and extent of which are presently unknown to him. Plaintiff20 therefore requests that attorneys’ fees be awarded pursuant to Government Code § 12965.21 105. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the outra-22 geous conduct of Defendants described above was done with malice, fraud, and oppression23 and with conscious disregard for her rights and with the intent, design, and purpose of24 injuring her. By reasons thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages from25 Defendant in a sum according to proof at trial.262728 19 Verified Complaint Doc ID: 6497910342002892597a9af0d4c4b028fbf6c381 1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Failure to Engage in the Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of FEHA 3 Gov. Code § 12940 4 (Plai
Related Contentin Sacramento County
Case
LVNV FUNDING LLC vs BENOIT
Aug 30, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017284
Case
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs PENA, et al.
Aug 29, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017177
Case
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. vs COLE
Aug 26, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV016996
Case
LOBEL FINANCIAL CORP. vs RUBLY, et al.
Aug 28, 2024 |Richard K. Sueyoshi |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017080
Case
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF PALMA/VELASQUEZ
Jan 02, 2024 |Dissolution |Dissolution |24FL00013
Case
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LANE
Jan 05, 2024 |Dissolution |Dissolution |24FL00083
Case
IN THE MATTER OF: MARISELA CHAVEZ
Aug 29, 2024 |Alyson L. Lewis |(Other Civil Petition) |Unlimited Civil |24CV017232
Case
CAVALRY SPV I LLC AS ASSIGNEE OF SYNCHRONY BANK vs BOWSER
Aug 30, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017313
Ruling
IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Civil Petition) |24CV010770
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54Tentative RulingThe First Amended Verified Petition for approval for transfer of payment rights by andbetween Roman Yslas (“the Payee”) and J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC(“Petitioner”), pursuant to California Insurance Code sections 10134, et seq. isUNOPPOSED and GRANTED.Payee seeks to transfer a payment of $59,000.00 from a future structured settlementpayment due on April 2, 2028, in exchange for a purchase price of $30,284.39. Thefuture payment has a discounted present value equal to $48,442.41. The purchaseprice to be paid to Payee was calculated using a discount rate of 19.47%.Payee is 26 years old. He is not married, and he does not have any children. He worksas an EMT, working approximately 40 hours a week at the rate of $21.00 per hour. Hedoes not have any court-ordered child support obligations. The subject settlementoccurred in 2003 and resulted from a wrongful death claim. (Am. Decl. of Payee ISOPet. ¶¶ 4, 8.)Payee declares that when the original settlement was completed, the future paymentthat is the subject of this petition was not intended to pay for future medical care andtreatment related to the incident that was the subject of the settlement or necessaryliving expenses. (Am. Decl. of Payee ISO Pet. ¶¶ 6, 7.)Payee had one previous transfer of a structured settlement payment approved inFebruary 2024,[1] in which he transferred a future payment of $45,000.00 in exchangefor $23,000. In support of that transfer, Payee explained that he intended to use thefunds to purchase vending machines and start a business. The current petition does notindicate if Payee did so.If the current petition is approved, Payee avers: I will use the money received from the proposed settlement to pay off high interest credit cards that I have. By doing this it will minimize the interest and even avoid interest charges. This will improve my credit score. With my credit score improving, this can make it easier to qualify for better interest Page 1 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54 rates and other loans, such as mortgages in the future. The less debt I have, the more flexibility I will have for my budget. I can continue to invest in my business in e-commerce. Which in the long run will bring me more passive income.(Am. Decl. of Payee ISO Pet. ¶ 11.)The Court finds under Insurance Code section 10139.5 that the proposed sale is: (1) Is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents. (2) The payee has been advised in writing by the transferee to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has either received that advice or knowingly waived, in writing, the opportunity to receive the advice. (3) The transferee has complied with the notification requirements set forth in Insurance Code section 10139.5, subdivision (f)(2); the transferee has provided the payee with a disclosure form that complies with Insurance Code section 10136; and the transfer agreement complies with Insurance Code sections 10136 and 10138. (4) The transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority. (5) The payee understands the terms of the transfer agreement, including the terms set forth in the disclosure statement required by Insurance Code section 10136. (6) The payee understands and does not wish to exercise the payee’s right to cancel the transfer agreement.Accordingly, the petition is granted. Petitioner shall submit a formal order for the Court'ssignature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312. Page 2 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54[1] The previous petition was filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court, CaseNo. 23CV011934.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver Page 3 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 4 of 4
Ruling
Christina Mcguire vs. Austin Crownover
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Motor Vehicle - Personal Inju...) |34-2020-00281758-CU-PA-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2020-00281758-CU-PA-GDS: Christina Mcguire vs. Austin Crownover 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 54Tentative RulingDefendant and cross-complainant, Austin Crownover’s (“Defendant”) motion to compelcross-defendants Maricella Rubio Guzman and Jose Guzman Marin’s (collectively,“Cross-Defendants”) attendance at deposition is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.This action arises out of an automobile collision that occurred on July 15, 2018, in ElkGrove, California. All parties in this action, other than plaintiff Christina McGuire(“Plaintiff”), have filed Cross-Complaints against one another.Defendant has noticed the depositions of Cross-Defendants two times and contendsthey have refused to appear, necessitating this motion.Defendant first noticed the depositions of Cross-Defendants to occur on February 28,2023. (Declaration of Taylor J. Turville (“Turville Decl.”) ¶ 6, Ex. A.) Cross-Defendantsobjected to the noticed depositions on February 22, 2023, on the grounds the date wasunilaterally set and neither Cross-Defendants nor their counsel were available on thedate. (Turville Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.) Defendant’s counsel then requested new dates fromCross-Defendants’ counsel. (Turville Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. C.)Defendant served another deposition notice for the deposition of Ms. Guzman to takeplace on March 28, 2023, but this deposition did not go forward. (Turville Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10,Ex. D.) Defendant then served another notice for the depositions of Cross-Defendantsto take place on May 22, 2024. (Turville Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. E.) Cross-Defendants objectedon May 16, 2024, again on the grounds the date was unilaterally set and neither Cross-Defendants nor their counsel were available. (Turville Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. F.) Defendant’scounsel then requested new dates from Cross-Defendants’ counsel and received noresponse. (Turville Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. G.)Defendant has most recently noticed Cross-Defendants’ depositions to take place onSeptember 10, 2024, and contends this motion is necessary to ensure Cross-Defendants will appear. (Turville Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. H.)Section 2025.450 provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the actionor an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designatedby an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a validobjection under Section 2025.410 [regarding defects in deposition notice], fails toappear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection anydocument, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the depositionnotice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent'sattendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document,electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2020-00281758-CU-PA-GDS: Christina Mcguire vs. Austin Crownover 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 54The record demonstrates that Defendant has been attempting to obtain a mutuallyagreeable deposition dates from Cross-Defendants since January 2023 and that Cross-Defendants’ counsel either does not provide dates or does not respond to the meet andconfer correspondence. Further, Defendant has served multiple deposition notices, towhich Cross-Defendants repeatedly objected based upon unavailability.Cross-Defendants have not opposed this motion, which the Court construes as aconcession on the merits. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Cross-Defendantsshall appear for their noticed depositions on September 10, 2024.Defendant’s request for sanctions against Cross-Defendants and their counsel of recordis GRANTED in the amount of $630 (representing three hours of attorney time at therate of $190 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee). Sanctions shall be paid no later thanSeptember 27, 2024, and, if not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare for theCourt's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced asa separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rulesof Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2020-00281758-CU-PA-GDS: Christina Mcguire vs. Austin Crownover 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 54requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the SacramentoSuperior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 3 of 3
Ruling
Chelsea Sexson vs. CFM Equipment Distributors, Inc.
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Civil Rights/Discrimination) |34-2022-00331692-CU-CR-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2022-00331692-CU-CR-GDS: Chelsea Sexson vs. CFM Equipment Distributors, Inc. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection-Set Three in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiff in pro per Chelsea Sexson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel defendant CFMEquipment Distributors, Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve verified further responses toPlaintiff’s Demand for Inspection, Set Three, request number 4, is DENIED.Plaintiff filed this employment action on December 21, 2022. The operative SecondAmended Complaint (“2AC”) was filed on December 15, 2023, and alleges 41 counts.This action is primarily a wage and hour action, but Plaintiff also alleges numerous otherclaims, including, but not limited to, disability discrimination, defamation, breach ofcontract, a CFRA violation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.Plaintiff served her Demand for Inspection, Set Three, on March 4, 2024.Request number 4 asks for “Profit and Loss statements of Defendant for each year ofPlaintiffs [sic] employment relationship with Defendant.”Defendant served responses on April 2, 2024, and supplemental responses on April 16,2024. Defendant’s supplemental response states: “Objection. This request seeks documents which are irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that the documents requested go to issues of potential punitive damages, this request is premature and barred pursuant to Civil Code § 3295(d).”Defendant notes in its opposition that it’s reference to subdivision (d) was atypographical error and the reference should be to subdivision (c).Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s response is incomplete and evasive. Plaintiff’sarguments for compelling a further response appear only in her separate statement.Plaintiff cites to the broad scope of relevance in discovery and the liberal policiesunderlying discovery procedures and argues the request seeks relevant informationbecause she was employed as a purchasing manager with Defendant and had thepower to “directly impact” Defendant’s gross profits. Thus, she concludes Defendant’sprofitability goes directly towards the issue of whether she was wrongfully terminated.Defendant opposes on the ground that Civil Code sections 3294 and 3295 governbecause Plaintiff’s 2AC seeks punitive damages.Civil Code section 3295(c) provides: “No pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2022-00331692-CU-CR-GDS: Chelsea Sexson vs. CFM Equipment Distributors, Inc. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection-Set Three in Department 54permitted with respect to the evidence [of (2) the financial condition of the defendant]unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery pursuant to this subdivision.... Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after ahearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enteran order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdivision if the courtfinds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that theplaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff willprevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294.” (emphasis added.)Defendant contends the request seeks the exact kind of “financial condition” discoverybarred by section 3295(c) without a court order. In the alternative, Defendant alsoargues the information sought is irrelevant because Defendant’s profitability has nothingto do with whether Defendant is liable for any employment-related offense as alleged inthe 2AC.The Court agrees that the request seeks discovery regarding Defendant’s financialcondition, which is governed by section 3295(c), and therefore not permissible without acourt order. Indeed, “[s]ection 3295 was enacted ... to protect defendants from thepremature disclosure of their financial condition when punitive damages are sought.”(Medo v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 64, 67.) Even if section 3295(c) did notgovern, the Court is not persuaded the information sought is relevant to Plaintiff’sclaims. Plaintiff’s argument that she influenced Defendant’s profits as a PurchasingManager and, therefore, if Defendant was profitable, the information would tend to showshe was wrongfully terminated, is tenuous and not persuasive.Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED given the outcome of this motion.Further, a plaintiff in pro per is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees for their own timespent on litigation. (See Witte v. Kaufman (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1201; Trope v. Katz(1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292.)Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is DENIED as Defendantfails to cite to any legal authority in support of the request.The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rulesof Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure: Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2022-00331692-CU-CR-GDS: Chelsea Sexson vs. CFM Equipment Distributors, Inc. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection-Set Three in Department 54To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the SacramentoSuperior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 3 of 3
Ruling
Wells Fargo Bank National Association vs. First Western Financial Inc
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Promissory Note/Collect...) |34-2013-00150544-CU-CL-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2013-00150544-CU-CL-GDS: Wells Fargo Bank National Association vs. First Western Financial Inc 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order Correcting Application for a Renewal of Judgment in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for order amendingthe application for and renewal of judgment is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.On May 20, 2024, this Court entered an Application for a Renewal of Judgment (the“Renewal of Judgment”) against defendant First Western Financial, Inc., a corporation,and Mervin Ezray aka Mervin L. Ezray (collectively, “Defendants”) in the sum of$89,978.05. Plaintiff moves to amend the Renewal of Judgment nunc pro tunc toinstead reflect the sum of $80,978.05, as Plaintiff’s attorney of record mistakenly addeda “9” instead of a “0”.Plaintiff’s motion invokes the inherent power of a court to vacate and correct itsjudgments, which because of clerical error are improvidently or inadvertently made, aswell as the power under section 473 [and 187] of the Code of Civil Procedure to correctclerical errors, and to vacate judgments as the result of accident, surprise andexcusable neglect on the part of the parties or their counsel. (Bastajian v. Brown (1941)19 Cal.2d 209, 214.) It bears noting that this statutory authority codifies the court’sinherent power “‘after final judgment, and regardless of lapse of time, to correct clericalerrors or misprisions in its records, whether made by the clerk, counsel or the courtit*elf, so the records will conform to and speak the truth.’“ (Ames v. Paley (2001) 89Cal.App.4th 668, 672; Mirabito v. San Francisco Dairy Co. (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 54, 59-60.)Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.The Court will sign the Amended Judgment submitted with the moving papers.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Page 1 of 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2013-00150544-CU-CL-GDS: Wells Fargo Bank National Association vs. First Western Financial Inc 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order Correcting Application for a Renewal of Judgment in Department 54Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the SacramentoSuperior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 2 of 2
Ruling
34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS
Aug 28, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS: Heriberto Mosqueda vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents from Jagdip Singh in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiffs Heriberto Mosqueda, Sr. and Gladis Paola Barrera’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motionfor to compel Defendant Jagdip Sing (“Singh”) to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, is ruled upon as follows.BackgroundThe Court refers the parties to its background discussion in the ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion tocompel as to FedEx on today’s calendar for the general background of this dispute. Specificallyas to Singh, the Court notes that the discovery set consisted of two requests for production ofdocuments (Request Nos. 49-50). At issue in this motion is Request No. 49, which soughtSingh’s phone records for the date of the incident.DiscussionThe Court again refers to its ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as to FedEx on today’scalendar regarding Singh’s arguments that Plaintiffs’ motion is mooted by Singh’s belatedservice of further responses and that Plaintiffs’ filed this motion too hastily before fully meetingand conferring. The Court’s analysis in that ruling applies equally here.A party may respond to a request for production of documents by any of the following: (1) astatement of compliance; (2) a representation of an inability to comply; or (3) an objection.(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a).)As set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, “A representation of inability tocomply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm thata diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with thatdemand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because theparticular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, orstolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the respondingparty. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organizationknown or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or categoryof item.”As noted above, Request No. 49 sought Singh’s cell phone records from the date of the incident.Singh responded, “Defendant is unable to comply with this request because no responsivedocuments are in his possession, custody, or control.” (Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement, p. 2:12-14.) This response fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, as it does notaffirm that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was made, does not specify why or how Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS: Heriberto Mosqueda vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents from Jagdip Singh in Department 54Singh does not possess responsive documents, and does not identify any person or organizationknown or believed to have the documents. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.DispositionPlaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Singh has already served furtherresponses, so the Court will not order the responses be re-served. However, the Court expressesno opinion as to the sufficiency of the further responses.Plaintiffs also request monetary sanctions in the amount of $985, representing one hour ofattorney time at $750 per hour, one hour of paralegal time at $175 per hour, and the $60 filingfee for this motion. The Court finds the amount requested reasonable. Thus, Plaintiffs’ requestfor sanctions is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Singh and his counsel jointly andseverally. Sanctions shall be paid by no later than September 20, 2024, and if not paid by thatdate, Plaintiffs may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions,which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CodeCiv. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS: Heriberto Mosqueda vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents from Jagdip Singh in Department 54non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 3 of 3
Ruling
34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS: Heriberto Mosqueda vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents from Jagdip Singh in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiffs Heriberto Mosqueda, Sr. and Gladis Paola Barrera’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motionfor to compel Defendant Jagdip Sing (“Singh”) to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, is ruled upon as follows.BackgroundThe Court refers the parties to its background discussion in the ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion tocompel as to FedEx on today’s calendar for the general background of this dispute. Specificallyas to Singh, the Court notes that the discovery set consisted of two requests for production ofdocuments (Request Nos. 49-50). At issue in this motion is Request No. 49, which soughtSingh’s phone records for the date of the incident.DiscussionThe Court again refers to its ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as to FedEx on today’scalendar regarding Singh’s arguments that Plaintiffs’ motion is mooted by Singh’s belatedservice of further responses and that Plaintiffs’ filed this motion too hastily before fully meetingand conferring. The Court’s analysis in that ruling applies equally here.A party may respond to a request for production of documents by any of the following: (1) astatement of compliance; (2) a representation of an inability to comply; or (3) an objection.(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a).)As set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, “A representation of inability tocomply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm thata diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with thatdemand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because theparticular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, orstolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the respondingparty. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organizationknown or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or categoryof item.”As noted above, Request No. 49 sought Singh’s cell phone records from the date of the incident.Singh responded, “Defendant is unable to comply with this request because no responsivedocuments are in his possession, custody, or control.” (Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement, p. 2:12-14.) This response fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, as it does notaffirm that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was made, does not specify why or how Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS: Heriberto Mosqueda vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents from Jagdip Singh in Department 54Singh does not possess responsive documents, and does not identify any person or organizationknown or believed to have the documents. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.DispositionPlaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Singh has already served furtherresponses, so the Court will not order the responses be re-served. However, the Court expressesno opinion as to the sufficiency of the further responses.Plaintiffs also request monetary sanctions in the amount of $985, representing one hour ofattorney time at $750 per hour, one hour of paralegal time at $175 per hour, and the $60 filingfee for this motion. The Court finds the amount requested reasonable. Thus, Plaintiffs’ requestfor sanctions is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Singh and his counsel jointly andseverally. Sanctions shall be paid by no later than September 20, 2024, and if not paid by thatdate, Plaintiffs may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions,which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CodeCiv. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS: Heriberto Mosqueda vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents from Jagdip Singh in Department 54non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 3 of 3
Ruling
MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs KHAI...
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Breach of Contract/Warranty) |23CV007247
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO23CV007247: MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs KHAIRA LOGISTICS INC., et al.08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Post Judgment Turnover in Aid of Enforcement of Judgment in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiff Midland States Bank’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for a post-judgment turnover orderpursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 699.040 is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.On May 10, 2024, the Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff againstdefendants Khaira Logistics, Inc. and Major Singh (collectively, “Defendants”) for thesum of $522,143.52 plus the return of Plaintiff’s four 2023 Wabash Arctic Lite Reeferswhich serve as collateral on the defaulted loan agreement (the “Vehicles”). To date,Defendants have failed to pay any portion of the judgment or surrender possession ofthe Vehicles despite multiple demands. (Declaration of Mark M. Scott, ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. 2.)Section 699.040 provides: “If a writ of execution is issued the judgment creditor mayapply to the court ex parte, or on noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule sorequires, for an order directing the judgment debtor to transfer to the levying officereither or both of the following: (1) Possession of property sought to be levied upon if theproperty is sought to be levied upon by taking it into custody, ( 2) Possession ofdocumentary evidence of title to property of or a debt owed to the judgment debtor thatis sought to be levied upon."Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the order submitted.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Page 1 of 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO23CV007247: MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs KHAIRA LOGISTICS INC., et al.08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Post Judgment Turnover in Aid of Enforcement of Judgment in Department 54Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the SacramentoSuperior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 2 of 2
Ruling
IN THE MATTER OF: EVAN PERLICK
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Civil Petition) |24CV010117
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010117: IN THE MATTER OF: EVAN PERLICK 08/27/2024 Hearing on Petition for Release of Property from Lien in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiffs/petitioners’ Evan Perlick and Michelle Perlick’s (collectively, “Petitioners”)petition for release of property from mechanic’s lien is GRANTED.Petitioners request the Court order the release of the Mechanic’s Lien on propertylocated at 9252 Orangevale Ave., Orangevale, California, on the ground respondentMark Garcia (“Respondent”) has failed to bring an action to enforce the lien within 90days after the recordation of the claim of lien as required by Civil Code section 8460.A motion to release a mechanic’s lien under Civil Code section 8480 is limited toreleasing stale claims based on the failure to file a lawsuit within 90 days of recordingthe lien. A petition for release of lien based on failure to file a lawsuit within 90 daysrequires a certified copy of the claim of lien to be attached to the petition. (Civil Code §8484(a).) Petitioners have attached a certified copy of the lien to the Petition. (Exh. 1.)Civil Code section 8486(b) requires that the petitioner serve a copy of the petition and anotice of hearing on the claimant at least 15 days before the hearing. Service shall bemade in the same manner as service of summons, or by certified or registered mail,postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the claimant as provided inSection 8108. (Civil Code § 8486(b).) Petitioners have satisfied the service requirementas provided in Section 8108.The owner of property, or the owner of any interest in the property, subject to a claim oflien may petition the court for an order to release the property from the claim of lien ifthe claimant has not commenced an action to enforce the lien within the time providedin Section 8460. (Civil Code § 8480(a).)Petitioners have established they are the owner of real property located at 9252Orangevale Ave., Orangevale, California (the “Property”). (Petition at ¶ 1.)On March 20, 2023, in the Official Records of Sacramento County, California,Respondent recorded a claim of mechanics lien against the Property. The lien wasrecorded as Document #202303200004 in the amount of $39,850 for construction of anadditional dwelling unit. A certified copy of the Mechanics’ Lien (Claim of Lien) isattached to the Petition as Exhibit 1.Respondent failed to bring an action to enforce the lien within 90 days after therecordation of the lien, as required by Code Civil Code section 8460. No action hasbeen filed to foreclose the lien; no extension of credit has been recorded; and the timeperiod during which suit can be brought to foreclose the lien has expired. Petitionerssent Respondent a written demand on September 25, 2023, to remove the lien, but Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010117: IN THE MATTER OF: EVAN PERLICK 08/27/2024 Hearing on Petition for Release of Property from Lien in Department 54Respondent is unwilling to do so. (Petition at ¶ 6.)Petitioners have established the grounds for the requested relief.Respondent has filed an untimely opposition on August 19, 2024, which was only sixcourt days prior to the hearing in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.Despite its untimeliness, the Court has reviewed the opposition and concludes it doesnot materially affect the outcome of this motion as Respondent does not raise anyargument or legal authority establishing the petition should not be granted for failure totimely enforce the lien within 90 days.The Court therefore grants the petition and the subject real property is ordered releasedfrom the lien. (Civ. Code §§ 8460(a), 8488(b).)Petitioners are also entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Civ.Code § 8488(c).) Petitioners have not requested any amount of fees and costs andindicate such reasonable amount will be determined by motion after entry of judgment.Petitioners shall submit a proposed order for the Court’s signature pursuant to CaliforniaRules of Court, Rule. 3.1312.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010117: IN THE MATTER OF: EVAN PERLICK 08/27/2024 Hearing on Petition for Release of Property from Lien in Department 54Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 3 of 3
Ruling
RALICH vs AMADA MACHINERY AMERICA, INC., et al.
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Breach of Contract/Warranty) |24CV006291
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV006291: RALICH vs AMADA MACHINERY AMERICA, INC., et al. 08/28/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54Tentative RulingThe Notice of Demurrer does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, asrequired by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counselforthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. Ifmoving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, they shall be availableat the hearing in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forthin Local Rule 1.06(B).Defendant Amada Machinery America, Inc.’s (“Amada”) demurrer to Plaintiff Tanja Ralich, anindividual and dba Big R Metals’ (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is sustained with leave to amend asfollows.Factual AllegationsThis action arises out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a Marvel Horizontal Miter Saw SA330WPC(“Saw”).Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 12, 2022, Plaintiff bought the Saw from DefendantHixco (“Hixco”) and Amada for $45,700. (Compl. ¶ 5.) The contract of sale was oral and a copyof the sale invoice is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. (Ibid.) The sale invoice has theword “HIXCO” in large, bold font at the top of the page and states that the Saw was sold to “BigR Metals.” Amada is not referenced on the sale invoice. (Compl., Ex. A.)Plaintiff alleges Hixco was and is a merchant with respect to the goods of the kind that it sold toher and that an implied warranty existed that said goods were merchantable. (Compl. ¶ 6.)Plaintiff does not allege Amada’s identity relative to the Saw.Plaintiff alleges the Saw was “not fit for the ordinary purposes for which those goods are used,because the cuts are not straight or clean, the blades break frequently at the weld point, theencoder failed so the machine will not run automatically, and the saw has to be set to lower thanmanufactured specified speed settings.” (Compl. ¶ 7.) Further, Plaintiff alleges the Saw was “notfit for the particular purposes for which [it was] required, in that the cuts are not straight or clean,the blades break frequently at the weld point, the encoder failed so the machine will not runautomatically, and the saw has to be set to lower than manufactured specified speed settings.”(Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff also alleges that the Saw runs “lower than advertised speeds to cut straightand . . . did not come with a split vice” contrary to “Amada’s website[,]” which “listed the[Saw’s] speed range and showed a split vice in [a] video depicting the [S]aw.” (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.)Plaintiff alleges that she notified Defendants of the Saw’s nonconformities, but they refuse toreplace it. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.) She alleges she has been damaged in an amount of at least Page 1 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV006291: RALICH vs AMADA MACHINERY AMERICA, INC., et al. 08/28/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54$47,500. (Compl. ¶ 15.)Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 2, 2024. Its caption states that it is a Complaint for: (1)breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (2) breach of implied warranty of fitness, and (3)breach of express warranty of description. However, the Complaint does not comply withCalifornia Rule of Court, rule (“CRC”) 2.112. The causes of action listed in the caption are notseparately stated in the body of the Complaint by number, their nature, and against whichdefendant(s) they are asserted. However, the Complaint’s factual allegations suggest thatPlaintiff alleges the breach of implied warranty of fitness and breach of express warranty ofdescription causes of action against Amada (and Hixco). (See Compl. ¶¶ 6-15.)Legal StandardThe Court’s review is “governed by settled standards.” (SJJC Aviation Services, LLC v. City ofSan Jose (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1043, 1051.) The Court: review[s] the . . . complaint . . . “to determine whether it alleges facts stating a cause of action under any legal theory. [Citation.] ... [¶] Because the function of a demurrer is not to test the truth or accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint, [the Court] assume[s] the truth of all properly pleaded factual allegations. [Citation.] Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove these allegations is not relevant; [the] focus is on the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” [Citations.] “Further, [the Court] give[s] the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” [Citations.] [The Court] also consider[s] matters that may be judicially noticed and facts appearing in any exhibits attached to the petition and complaint.[1] [Citations.] We do not, however, assume the truth of “mere contentions or assertions contradicted by judicially noticeable facts.” [Citations.] After reviewing the allegations of the petition, the accompanying exhibits, and the matters properly subject to judicial notice, [fn.] [the Court] determine[s] whether the petition states a cause of action as a matter of law.(Id. at pp. 1051-1052.)Discussion Page 2 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV006291: RALICH vs AMADA MACHINERY AMERICA, INC., et al. 08/28/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54Amada demurs to the Complaint arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s purported cause of action forbreach of implied warranty for fitness “is not possible against Amada because there is no privitybetween the parties, where Plaintiff purchased the [Saw] from Hixco[,]” and Plaintiff’s purportedcause of action for breach of express warranty fails because she has not alleged a clearstatement/warranty that Amada expressed. (Demurrer 2:9-17, 12:27-28.) Amada further arguesthat the Complaint is subject to demurrer for uncertainty due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply withCRC 2.112. (Id. at 2:6-8.)The Court addresses Amada’s arguments in turn.A. Breach of Implied Warranty for Fitness“Vertical privity is a prerequisite in California for recovery on a theory of breach of the impliedwarranties of fitness and merchantability.” (U.S. Roofing, Inc. v. Credit Alliance Corp. (1991)228 Cal.App.3d 1431, 1441.) “Vertical privity means that the buyer and seller were parties to thesales contract.” (Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th116, 138.) However, there are recognized exceptions to the vertical privity requirement,including allowing such causes of action to be pursued by a buyer’s family members oremployees. (See Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d. 104, 113, fn. 8; Peterson v. Lamb RubberCo. (1960) 54 Cal.2d. 339, 348.) “Direct dealings” between a buyer and manufacturer have alsoexcused a lack of vertical privity between the parties under certain circ*mstances. (See CardinalHealth 201, Inc., supra, at pp. 139-145.)Amada demurs to Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of implied warranty for fitness on thebasis that “Plaintiff and Defendant are not in vertical privity with each other” and Plaintiff hasnot alleged any facts to support a vertical privity exception. (Demurrer ¶ 11:14-12:2.) Amadaargues that any allegations, which suggest a contractual relationship existed between Plaintiffand Amada are contrary to the sale invoice attached to the Complaint, and, therefore, do not haveto be credited as true in deciding the demurrer. (Id. at 14:21-15:9.)Plaintiff responds that “[a]n exception to the privity requirement may be allowed when theparties have extensive ‘direct dealings’ with each other, even though they do not have a formalcontractual relationship[,]” and “Amada[,] through their agent Sandy Young . . . negotiated thepurchase, reaching an agreement on the type and price of the saw with Plaintiff and only whenPlaintiff was ready to move forward with the purchase, did Amada’s agent direct Plaintiff topurchase the machine from Defendant Hixco.” (Opp’n 2:13-20.)Here, Plaintiff does not dispute Amada’s contention that the sales invoice attached to theComplaint demonstrates a lack of vertical privity between Plaintiff and Amada. Rather, sheargues in opposition that facts exist which bring the sale of the Saw into the direct dealingexception. Such facts are not alleged in the Complaint. Therefore, they cannot be considered indeciding the demurrer. Page 3 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV006291: RALICH vs AMADA MACHINERY AMERICA, INC., et al. 08/28/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54Since the sale invoice establishes that the sale of the Saw was between Plaintiff and Hixco, andthe Complaint does not currently allege facts to support application of an exception to thevertical privity requirement, Amada’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s cause of action for beach of theimplied warranty of fitness is sustained.B. Express Warranty California Uniform Commercial Code section 2313 provides, inter alia, that express warranties[[2]] are created by (1) any affirmation of fact or promise made . . . to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain, and (2) any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain. Formal words such as “warranty” or “guarantee” are not required to make a warranty, but the seller's affirmation of the value of the goods or an expression of opinion or commendation of the goods does not create an express warranty.(Keith v. Buchanan (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 13, 19.)“ ‘The determination as to whether a particular statement is an expression of opinion or anaffirmation of a fact is often difficult, and frequently is dependent upon the facts andcirc*mstances existing at the time the statement is made.’ [Citation.]” (Keith, supra, at p. 21.)“Commentators have noted several factors which tend to indicate an opinion statement. Theseare (1) a lack of specificity in the statement made, (2) a statement that is made in an equivocalmanner, or (3) a statement which reveals that the goods are experimental in nature.” (Ibid.) “It isclear that statements made by a manufacturer or retailer in an advertising brochure which isdisseminated to the consuming public in order to induce sales can create express warranties.” (Id.at p. 22.)Amada demurs to Plaintiff’s express warranty cause of action on the ground that she fails toallege a clear and unequivocal statement that Amada made on its website or elsewhere thatinduced Plaintiff to purchase the Saw. (Demurrer 12:9-11, 12:27-28.)Plaintiff rejoins that her breach of express warranty claim is not based solely on a visual image.She states: The video shows the [Saw] while [a] voice explains and points out the critical features. In a clear and unequivocal statement regarding the features of this specific miter saw, at the 2:05 minute mark, the narrator states “full stroke hydraulic vise jaws hold work pieces on both sides of the blade, reducing blade vibration, providing more Page 4 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV006291: RALICH vs AMADA MACHINERY AMERICA, INC., et al. 08/28/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54 accurate cuts, as well as longer blade life.” Plaintiff watched the video and relied on the representations made visually and audibly as to the specifications of [the Saw].(Opp’n 3:10-19.)The sole allegation Plaintiff makes against Amada to support her breach of express warrantyclaim is that “Amada’s website listed . . . the speed range and showed a vice split in the videodepicting the [S]aw.” (Compl. ¶ 10.) The Court agrees that this paragraph does not allege astatement or promise that is sufficiently specific and unequivocal to form the basis of a breach ofexpress warranty claim. Plaintiff adds details concerning the content of Amada’s video in heropposition, but said details are not alleged in the Complaint.For the stated reasons, Amada’s demurrer is sustained as to Plaintiff’s breach of expresswarranty cause of action.C. ConclusionAmada’s demurrer is sustained in its entirety.The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as this is Amada’s first challenge to thepleadings. Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint no later than September 9, 2024, toaddress the deficiencies raised in Amada’s demurrer.Further, although Plaintiff’s non-compliance with CRC 2.112 is not a basis for the Court’sruling, the Court cautions Plaintiff to follow its requirements in drafting any amended pleading.Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiff is directed to present the clerk with acopy of this ruling at the time it files the First Amended Complaint to facilitate its filing.This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CodeCiv. Proc., § 1019.5; CRC 3.1312.)[1] “If the facts appearing in [an] attached exhibit contradict those expresslypleaded, those in the exhibit are given precedence.” (Sarale v. Pacific Gas & ElectricCo. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 225, 245; accord Barnett v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2001)90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505 [stating “to the extent the factual allegations conflict with thecontent of the exhibits to the complaint, we rely on and accept as true the contents ofthe exhibits”].)[2] “A warranty relates to the title, character, quality, identity, or condition of the Page 5 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV006291: RALICH vs AMADA MACHINERY AMERICA, INC., et al. 08/28/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54goods. The purpose of the law of warranty is to determine what it is that the seller has inessence agreed to sell.” (Keith, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at p. 20.)NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver Page 6 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV006291: RALICH vs AMADA MACHINERY AMERICA, INC., et al. 08/28/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 7 of 7
Document
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC AS ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK, N.A. vs BLOOM
Aug 26, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV016785
Document
NASSERY vs SCORPIO TRANS INC., et al.
Aug 27, 2024 |Thadd A. Blizzard |(Motor Vehicle - Personal Inju...) |Unlimited Civil |24CV017055
Document
DISCOVER BANK vs FELGUEREZ
Aug 28, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017059
Document
WHITCOMB vs KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC, et al.
Oct 03, 2023 |Thadd A. Blizzard |(Breach of Contract/Warranty) |Unlimited Civil |24CV016812
Document
WESTERN FUNDING INCORPORATED vs CHATMAN, et al.
Aug 28, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017097
Document
ROE DS 42 vs DOE 1, A CORPORATION, et al.
Aug 26, 2024 |Thadd A. Blizzard |(Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |Unlimited Civil |24CV016830
Document
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. vs CREEDON
Aug 26, 2024 |Richard K. Sueyoshi |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV016995
Document
ESPINOSA vs JERSEY MIKE'S INC.
Aug 23, 2024 |Thadd A. Blizzard |(Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |Unlimited Civil |24CV016794
