Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV27283, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV27283 Hearing Date: September 4, 2024 Dept: 68
Dept.
68
Date:
9-5-24
Case
Number: 22STCV27283
Trial
Date: 1-27-25
PRO HAC VICE
MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Phillip 66 Company,
et al.
RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/, Plaintiff, Flavio Nino
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Motion
for Pro Hac Vice Admission
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
Plaintiff
alleges she was employed with Phillips 66 from 2011 to the present. On April
23, 2021, Plaintiff suffered an injury at work. That same day Phillips 66 sent
Plaintiff to be seen at CareOnSite, Phillip 66’s worker’s compensation
provider. Upon arriving at CareOnSite, Plaintiff alleges that CareOnSite
immediately administered a drug test. Plaintiff alleges she submitted to the
drug test based on the understanding that she was required to do so as a
condition of her continued employment and that if she refused to submit to the
drug test, it would result in her immediate termination. Plaintiff alleges
CareOnSite did not undertake any efforts to determine whether the drug test was
necessary. Plaintiff alleges that CareOnSite and Phillips 66 did not possess
any information implicating that Plaintiff was intoxicated or under the
influence of any substance at the time of the April 23, 2021, injury. Plaintiff
alleges CareOnSite aided and abetted Phillips 66 in discrimination and
retaliation against Plaintiff by facilitating and directly performing the drug
test on Plaintiff. Plaintiff stated she passed the drug test following the
demand of the employer. Plaintiff maintains upon returning to work employer
refused to accommodate the required work restrictions.
On
August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) Disability Discrimination;
(2) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive
Process; (4) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and
Retaliation; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6) Wrongful Termination in
Violation of Public Policy; and (7) Wrongful Constructive Termination in
Violation of Public Policy (8) Aiding and Abetting in Violation of FEHA. (9)
Unlawful Medical Inquiry in Violation of FEHA; (10) Violation of Labor Code §
432.6; and (11) Violation of Constitutional Right to Privacy. On
December 29, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer of CareOnSite, Inc. with 30
days leave to amend.
On
January 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (1) Disability
Discrimination; (2) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; (3) Failure to Engage in
the Interactive Process; (4) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent
Discrimination and Retaliation; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6)
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (7) Wrongful Constructive
Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (8) Aiding and Abetting in Violation
of FEHA; (9) Unlawful Medical Inquiry in Violation of FEHA; (10) Violation of
Labor Code § 432.6; and (11) Violation of Constitutional Right to Privacy. On
May 16, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer of CareOnSite, Inc. to the tenth
cause of action without leave to amend.
On
November 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (1) Disability
Discrimination; (2) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; (3) Failure to Engage in
the Interactive Process; (4) Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent
Discrimination and Retaliation; (5) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (6)
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (7) Wrongful Constructive
Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (8) Aiding and Abetting in Violation
of FEHA; (9) Unlawful Medical Inquiry in Violation of FEHA; and (10) Violation
of Constitutional Right to Privacy.
RULING: Granted.
Defendants, Phillip 66 Company and Careonsite, Inc. move for
pro hac vice admission of attorney Shauna Johnson Clark.
Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by
California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. To
be admitted pro hac vice, one must be “a member in
good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States
court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of
the United States.” (California
Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).) However,
in no case shall an attorney appear pro hac vice if the attorney is a resident
of California, regularly employed in California, or “regularly
engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State
of California.”
An attorney seeking pro hac vice
admission must file a verified application in both court and the State Bar of
California establishing:
(1) [t]he applicant's residence and office address; (2)[t]he courts to which the applicant has been admitted to
practice and the dates of admission; (3)[t]hat the applicant is a member in good standing in those
courts; (4)[t]hat the applicant is not currently suspended or
disbarred in any court; (5)[t]he title of court and cause in which the applicant has
filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the
date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6)[t]he name, address, and telephone number of the active
member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.
(California
Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).)
The application complies with California Rules of Court,
Rule 9.40. Attorney Clark has not sought admission within the last two years,
and practices within the State of Texas. The application includes a proof of
payment to the California State Bar. [Declaration of Philip Di Tullio.]
The application for pro hac vice admission is granted.
Second motion for pro hac vice admission on September 5,
2024. Motions to Compel Compliance with Requests for Supplemental Responses set
for September 24 and 25, 2024.
Moving
Defendants to give notice.