notice - other

8/12/2019 Notice - Other

1/8

I23456789111121314151617181922122232425262728

AREN T FOX LLPA T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

L o s A N C B I V i

Harry I. Johnson, III (SBN 200257)Stanley G. Stringfellow II (SBN 259047)ARENT FOX LLP555 West Fifth Street, 48th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90013-1065Telephone: 213.629.7400Facsimile. 213.629.7401Email: [email protected](^arentfox.comAttomeys for DefendantsPANDA EXPR ESS, INC., PANDA EXPRESS,LLC,PANDA INN, INC., PANDA RESTAURANTGROUP, INC., HIBACHI-SAN, INC.

rVuDtHDOBseo

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SOKPHY TIN,Plaintiff,

V .PANDA EX PRESS, INC., PANDAEXPRE SS, LLC, PANDA INN, INC.,PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,HIBACHI-SAN, INC ., and DOES1-100,inclusive,

Defendants.

CASENO. 34-2010-00090959NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEMPURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULESCOURT RULE3.1308AND LOCAL RULE3.04 D)Date:Time:DepfRef. N o.:

June 2 9, 20112:00 p.m .531530457Action Filed: Nov. 4, 2010Trial Date. None yetLaw Mot. Ju dge: Kevin R. Cu lhane (Dept 53)Case Mgmt. Progr.: Robert C. Hight (Dept. 44)

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEM
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/8

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEMTO ALL PARTIES AND TH EIR ATTORNEYS OF RE CO RD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, because Defendants' Notice of Motion did not providenotice ofthe Cou rt's tentative ruling system as required by C alifomia Ru les of Court Rule3.1308and Local Rule 3.04(D), the Cou rt ordered, in its tentative mling on Defendants' demurrer, a copyof which is attached to this Notice as Exhibit A, that Defendamts give Plaintiff notice ofthetentative mling system.

Defendants therefore give notice to Plaintiff that, pu rsuant to Local Ru le 3.04, the courtwill make a tentative ru ling on the m erits of this matter by 2:00 p .m., the court day before thehearing. Plaintiff may access and download the court's mling from the court's website athttp://www.saccourt.ca.gov. If Plaintiff does not have online access, she may obtain the tentativeruling over the telephone by calling (916) 874-8142 and a depu ty clerk will read the mlmg to her.f Plaintiff wishes to request oral argum ent, she must contact the clerk at (916) 874-7858Department 53) or (916) 874-7848 (Department 54) and the opposing party before 4:00 p m. the

court day before the hearing. If she does not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m onhe cou rt day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

AREN T FOX LLPA T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

Los ANCHIES NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEM
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/


3/8

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

ARENT Fox L LPATTORNHYS AT LAW

Los ANGBLES

The Cou rt further ordered Defendants to be available at the hearing, in person or bytelephone, in the event the opposing party appears withou t following the procedures set forth inLocal Rule 3.04(B) becau se their Notice of Motion did not provide the requisite notice ofthetentative mling system. Therefore, Defendants will be available at the hearing by telephone byand through their cou nsel of record, Harry I. Johnson, III, unless Plaintiff advisesDefendants inwriting of her intent not to appear at the demurrer hearing and consents to Defendants notifyingthe Court ofthe same.

Dated: June 28 , 2011 ARENT F

Stanley G. Stringfello|Attomeys for DefendaPANDA EXPRESS, INC., PANDAEXPR ESS, LLC, PANDA INN, INC.,PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,HIBACHI-SAN, INC.

-2-NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEM


4/8

EXHIBIT A


5/8

Glico Transportation & Accoun ting, Inc to Provide Further Answers to Post-JudgmentSpecial Interrogatories (Set One) is unopposed and is GRA NTED . The request forimposition of sanctions is denied, as the motion is not o ppose d. Code Civil Proceduresections 708.020, 2023.010.Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3 1348 purports to authorize sanctions if themotion IS unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governingthis discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion wa s unsuccessfully made oropposed. Any order imposing sanctions un derthe C R .C . must conform to thecond itions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sa nctions Trans-A ctionCom mercial Investors, Ltd v. Firmaterr, Inc (1997) 60 Cal App 4th 352 , 355.However, rep eated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead theCourt to find an abu se o fth e discovery process and aw ard sanctions on that basisLaguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal App . 3d 481Judgment Debtor Sanjay Dagar d.b.a. Gilco Transpo rtation & Accoun ting, Inc. shallprovide cou nsel for the Judgm ent Creditor with verif ied, further written answers tointerrogatories not later than Monday, July 11 ,2011 .This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order nor further notice isrequired, the tentative ruling providing sufficient notice

Item 18 2010-00090959-CU-OESokphy Tin v s. Panda E xpress, Inc.Nature of Proceeding. Heanng on DemurrerFiled By Johnson III, Harry I.Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint is OVERRULED.The notice of motion does not provide notice ofth e Court's tentative ruling system asrequired by with C R.C , Rule 3.1308 an d Local Rule 3.04(D) Loc al Rules for theSacramento Superior C ourt are available on the Court's website at Cou nsel for mov ing party isordered to notify opposing party immediately of the tentative ruling system and to beavailable at the hearing , in person or by telephone , in the event opp osing partyappears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 3.04(B).Plaintiff's complaint sets forth four causes of action against defendants: the 1 ^ forpregn ancy /sex disc rimina tion, the 2 for retaliation, the 3' '' for failure to preventdiscrimina tion a nd/or retaliation and the 4 ^ for adve rse action in violation of publicpolicy Defenda nts demur to each cause of action on the grounds that they fail to statefacts sufficient to constitute a cause ofaction,and on the g rounds of uncertainty.Demurrer to the 1^*for pregnancy/sex discrimination is OVER RU LED .A plaintiff em ployee w ho claims discrimination must allege a prima facie ca se, that shewas within the class p rotected from discrimination and was performing her jobcomp etently, but was term inated, plus some other circumstance suggestingdiscriminatory motive. Kellyv Stamps.com Inc. (2005)135 Cal. App. 4th 1088,1097
http://www%20saccourt.ca.aov/local-rules/local-rules.aspxhttp://stamps.com/http://stamps.com/http://www%20saccourt.ca.aov/local-rules/local-rules.aspx


6/8

The C ourt finds that the facts alleged in paras. 10-64, and incorpo rated by referenceinto each cause of action (with regard to incorporation by reference , see e.gRepublic Bank v. Marine Nat Bank (1996) 45 Cal Ap p. 4th 919, 922), including thenegative comments by a number of plaintiffs supervisors about her pregnancies andher children, are sufficient to raise an inference that the adverse e mploym ent actionstaken against plaintiff by defendants were based upon her gender/pregnancy.Demurrer to the 2 * cause of action for retaliation, is SUST AINED , with leave toamend.Plaintiff informed her general manager of her pregnancy m November 2008 Plaintiffhas failed to allege that her termination in February 20 09, has any nexus to herrequest for time off for her prior pregnancies, under the California Family R ights ActDem urrer to the 3' cause of action for failure to preven t discrimination and/orretaliation is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend as to the retaliation allegations.Demurrer to the 4 ^ cause of action for adverse action in violation of public policy, isOVERRULED Discrimination based on pregnancy has been sufficiently allegedPlaintiff may have leave to file and serve her first Amen ded Com plaint not later thanMonday, July 11,2011. The responsive pleading shall be due 10 days thereafter (15days if service is by m ail).This m inute order is effective imm ediately. No forma l order nor further notice isrequired, the tentative ruling providing sufficient notice

Item 19 2010-00091254-CU-FRRonnie J. Graham vs . JPMorgan Chase BankNature ofProceeding. Hearing on DemurrerFiled By Depuy, BnttanyDefendants JP Morgan Chase Bank and Chase Home Finance LLC's Demurrer toPlaintiffs C omp laint is unopposed but is DRO PPED from calendar The entire actionas to all parties was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on May 5, 2011

Item 20 2011-00094668-CU-PABethia Argueta Marcho rro vs. Richard Ralph KidderNature of Proceeding' Motion to Compel Further Responses to AdmissionsFiled By Loewen, Michael RThis matter is dropped from calendar


7/8

1234567891111213141516171819221222324252627

SOKPHYTIN V PANDA EXPRESS, INC. ETALSacramento Superior Court Case No .: 34-2010-00090959PROOF OF SERVICE

I am a citizen ofthe United States. My business address is Arent Fox LLP, 555 West FifthStreet, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, Califomia 90013-1065 . I am employed in the County of LosAngeles where this service occu rs. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the withincau se. On the date set forth below, according to ordinary bu siness practice, I served the foregoingdocument(s) described as:NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEM P UR SU AN T T O CALIFORNIARULES COU RT RULE3.1308AND LOCAL RUL E3.04 D)

[V] (BY FAX) I transmitted via facsimile, from facsimile num ber2136297401,the'' docu ment(s) to the person(s) on the attached service list at the fax number(s) setforth therein, on this date before 5-00 p.rn. A statement that this transmission wasreported as complete and properly issued by the sending fax machine without erroris attached to this Proof of Service.

II (BY E-MAIL) On this date, I personally transmitted the foregoing docu ment(s) via'' electronic mail to thee-mailaddress(es) ofthe person(s) on the attached service list.D (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with my employe r's bu siness practice forcollection and processing of correspondence for mailing with theU.S.PostalService, and that practice is that correspondence is deposited w ith theU.S.PostalService the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary cou rse ofbusiness Onthis date, I placed the docu ment(s) in envelopes addressed to the person(s) on theattached service list and sealed and placed the envelopes for collection and mailingfollowing ordinary bu siness practices.[1 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) On this date, I delivered by hand envelope(s)'' containing the docu ment(s) to the persons(s) on the attached service list.[1 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY ) On this date, I placed the documents in'' envelope(s) addressed to the person(s) on the attached service list, and caused thoseenvelopes to be delivered to an ovemight delivery camer, with delivery feesprovided for, for next-business-day delivery to whom it is to be servedII (State) I declare imder penalty of perjury imder the laws ofth e State of California'' that the foregoing is tme and correct.

Executed on Ju ne 28, 201 1 at Los Angeles, California

28AREN T FOX LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW

Los ANCBLHS PROOF OF SERVICE


8/8

123456789111121314151617181922122232425262728

AKENI FOX LLPA T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

L o s A N C E I H S

SOKPHYTIN V PANDA EXPRESS INC, ETALSacramento Superior Court CaseNo.- 34-2010-00090959SERVICE LIST

Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.BiancaN.Smith, Esq.BOHM LAW GROUP4600 Northgate BlvdSuite 210Sacramento, CA 95834PHONE: 916-927-5574FAX: 916-927-2046

PROOF OF SERVICE

notice - other

Documents