Judge: Brian F. Gasdia, Case: 23NWCV01923, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01923    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: R

#7

COOPER v. OCTAPHARMA PLASMA, INC.

CASE NO.:  23NWCV01923

HEARING:  06/03/25

      I.          Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant OCTOPHARMA PLASMA INC.’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one) is CONTINUED to Thursday, July 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. R to be heard in conjunction with Plaintiff’s four additionally scheduled discovery motions, and the Trial Setting Conference.

    II.          Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant OCTOPHARMA PLASMA INC.’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) is CONTINUED to Thursday, July 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. R to be heard in conjunction with Plaintiff’s four additionally scheduled discovery motions, and the Trial Setting Conference.

Court Clerk to give Notice.

This action for breach of contract was filed by Plaintiff TAWANA JEAN COOPER (“Plaintiff”) (in pro per) against Defendants OCTOPHARMA PLASMA, INC. (“OPI”); CAITLIN RYAN (“Ryan”) (collectively “Defendants”) and DOES 1 to 50.

On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC alleges that Plaintiff was employed as a Medical Screener at OPI, and the parties entered into an oral agreement wherein Plaintiff would work a part-time late afternoon schedule of no more than five hours per shift due to her disability. The oral agreement was purportedly conditioned on the requirement that Plaintiff work a mix of day and evening hours at more than five hours per shift during Plaintiff’s training period. Plaintiff completed the training. Thereafter, the FAC alleges that Defendants failed to abide by the terms of the alleged oral agreement by requiring Plaintiff to work outside of her specified hours, and failed to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability.

The FAC asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Breach of Oral Contract;

(2) Employment Discrimination Disability;

(3) Failure to Accommodate Disability;

(4) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process;

(5) Retaliation Request for Reasonable Accommodation;

(6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation;

(7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy;

(8) Violations of Lab. Code §1102.5; and

(9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

On February 19, 2025, Judge Lee W. Tsao granted Defendants’ Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and for Entry of a Pre-Filing Order.

On March 14, 2025, Judge Margaret Miller Bernal granted Plaintiffs’ Order Staying Proceedings pending Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandate to the Court of Appeal regarding the Court’s February 19, 2025 Order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. This action was stayed for 60 days from March 14, 2025.

On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice Regarding Appeal of Vexatious Litigant Designation, which states: “Plaintiff intends to file an appeal, rather than a petition for writ of mandate, to challenge the Court’s order declaring the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant….” (05/07/25, Notice Reg. Appeal)

The Court notes that a Notice of Reassignment was filed in this case on May 2, 2025 which states that effective June 2, 2025, this action was reassigned to Judge Brian F. Gasdia as an individual, direct calendaring judge for all purposes, including trial, in Dept. R.

On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a CCP §170.6 Peremptory Challenge against Judge Gasdia, which was denied on May 19, 2025 on the grounds that “Plaintiff has previously exhausted her one allotted Peremptory Challenge.” (05/19/25, M.O.)

The Stay issued on March 14, 2025 by Judge Bernal expired on May 13, 2025.

As of June 2, 2025, no Notice of Appeal or Notice of Stay Pending Appeal has been filed or lodged with this Court. (See In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1499 [The ‘filing of a notice of appeal deprives the trial court of jurisdiction of the cause and vests jurisdiction with the appellate court until the reviewing court issues a remittitur”].)  Similarly, as of June 2, 2025, no Notice or Request to extend the 60-day stay issued on March 14, 2025 has been filed or lodged with this Court. Therefore, this action is not stayed, and the Court’s docket does not reflect that there are any appeals currently pending.

The Court’s docket currently reflects that Plaintiff has six (6) pending discovery motions scheduled to be heard on various dates throughout June, July, and August 2025.

Currently at issue are the following: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant OPI’s Responses to Special Interrogatories (set one); and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant OPI’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one).

Plaintiff’s discovery motions scheduled for June 3, 2025 are CONTINUED to Thursday, July 17, 2025, as indicated above.  

Moreover, in the interests of judicial efficiency, Plaintiff’s four (4) additional discovery motions are ADVANCED to today’s date and CONTINUED to Thursday, July 17, 2025 so that all five (5) discovery motions may be heard in conjunction with one another, as follows:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (set one) against Defendant Ryan is ADVANCED from June 5, 2025 to today’s date and CONTINUED to Thursday, July 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. R.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Facts Admitted (set one) against Defendant Ryan is ADVANCED from June 18, 2025 to today’s date and CONTINUED to Thursday, July 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. R.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Reponses to Special Interrogatories (set three) as to Defendant Ryan is ADVANCED from July 15, 2025 to today’s date and CONTINUED to Thursday, July 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. R.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant OPI’s Reponses to Special Interrogatories (set three) is ADVANCED from August 12, 2025 to today’s date and CONTINUED to Thursday, July 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. R.

Oppositions and Replies to be filed and served per Code in accordance with the new hearing date.

The Court notes that “To the extent authorized by this chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, may impose [sanctions] against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process[,]” which includes monetary and issue and terminating sanctions. (CCP §2023.030.) A non-exhaustive list of the mis-uses of the discovery process are provided by CCP §2023.010. Consequently, the parties are cautioned that any unsuccessful discovery motion or opposition thereto may warrant sanctions, per Code.

The Trial Setting Conference scheduled for July 17, 2025 and Final Status Conference scheduled for August 6, 2025 remain on calendar, as scheduled.

The Court also notes that Plaintiff has filed and scheduled nine (9) Motions to Vacate a Void Order; and one (1) Motion for Correction of Superior Court Clerk’s Clerical Errors in Court and Minute Orders.