Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV16053, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16053    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 55

MARTIN v. LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY                          20STCV16053

Hearing Date: 12/5/22,  Dept. 55

#3:  MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES/MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE OF ALL DEFENDANTS; AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  

Summary

On 4/27/20, Plaintiff filed a Complaint.

On 11/24/20, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging:  Defendants unlawfully discriminated in employment, on account of religion, age and disability.  Plaintiff experienced an increasingly hostile and retaliatory work environment, which she believes was a result of  discriminatory acts, resulting in threats to change accommodation of her work hours that had been established since her employ, and inadequate updates in training and notice of changes in work procedures.  Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a deliberate course of harassment, demeaning remarks and belligerent behavior. These resulted in difficulty maintaining her work, and being unable to input information to meet case quotas, ultimately resulting in employment termination.  The Director and Dean supported and  facilitated superior Ms. Campos' personnel actions against plaintiff, over her protests.

The causes of action are:

1. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION [TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, ET.SEQ.]

2. AGE DISCRIMINATION [TIT.VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, ET.SEQ.]

3. DISABILITY [TIT.VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, ET.SEQ.]

4. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION [FEHA]

5. AGE [FEHA]

6. DISABILITY [FEHA]

7. HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT HARASSMENT  [FEHA]

8. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION [FEHA]

9. RETALIATION [CA LABOR CODE]

10. WRONGFUL TERMINATION [FEHA]

11. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL  DISTRESS.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order compelling defendants’ further document responses, and imposing $9,912.50 in sanctions, on bases including the following:

·         April 5, 2022 Plaintiff properly served her REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE on Defendants.

·         The responses, on July 1, 2022, were legally insubstantial, inadequate, and procedurally untimely, so as to be non-responsive.

·         Plaintiff repeatedly attempted Meet and Confers with defense counsel.

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.

The failure to file a proper and timely opposition in trial court creates a waiver of the issues on any appeal.  Bell v. Am. Title Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1589, 1602;  Cabrini Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Haghverdian (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 683, 693  (appellate court will not consider any erroneous rulings where an objection could have been made).