Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV34846, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34846    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: 17

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 

DEPARTMENT 17 

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED.

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit against Brinker International, Inc., Brinker International Payroll Co. LP, Brinker Restaurant Corporation, and Paul Aoun, alleging:

1.    Disability Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; 

2.    Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy; 

3.    Failure to Accommodate Disability in Violation of Government Code § 12940(m); 

4.    Failure to Engage in Interactive Process, California Government Code section 12940(N); 

5.    Retaliation Under FEHA; 

6.    Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment; 

7.    Discriminatory Termination/Interference in Violation of California Family Rights Act, California Government Code § 12945.2; 

8.    Retaliation for Exercising the Right to CFRA Leave Under Government Code § 12945.2; 

9.    Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Based Upon CFRA 

10.                       Retaliation for Exercising the Right to CFRA Leave Under Government Code § 12945.2; 

11.                       Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 232.5; 

12.                       Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; 

13.                       Harassment Based on Disability in Violation of FEHA; 

14.                       Declaratory Relief; 

15.                       Injunctive Relief; 

16.                       Failure to Allow Inspection of Personnel File; and 

17.                       Unfair Business Practices. 

On 2/14/2025, Plaintiff moved to quash Defendant’s Subpoena to California Pizza Kitchen.

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks to quash Defendant’s Subpoena to California Pizza Kitchen, on the basis that it improperly seeks “All performance reviews, disciplinary notices, and counseling memos related to [Aylward’s] job performance” (Subpoena ¶ 2(c)).

            The Court already considered, and denied, an identical request from Plaintiff. (See Minute Order 7/19/2024.) See Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1577 “…regardless of the name, a motion asking the trial court to decide the same matter previously ruled on is a motion for reconsideration…”)

            Plaintiff has not set any new facts or law which would warrant reconsideration.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.