Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00774, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00774    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: R

EVELYN SERRANO vs “MATIAS” CLINICAL LABORATORY, INC.  (21PSCV00774)

________________________________________________________________________

Defense Attorney Robert Silverman’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Tentative Ruling

Defense Attorney Robert Silverman’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel, is GRANTED effective upon [see below]

Background

 

This is an employment case. Plaintiff Evelyn Serrano (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant “MATIAS” CLINICAL LABORATORY, INC. d/b/a HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS LABORATORY (hereinafter “Matias”) wrongfully terminated Plaintiff after her pregnancy.

 

On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit againt Defendant for:

 

1.      Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

2.      Denial of Pregnancy Leave in Violation of Govt. Code Section 12945;

3.      Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

4.      Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

5.      Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

6.      Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

7.      Association Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

8.      Race Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

9.      Failure to Provide Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code Section 226; and

10.  Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

 

On December 10, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer.

 

On July 8, 2022, Defense Counsel filed the instant motion.

 

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL.

 

Discussion

 

Defense counsel seeks to be relieved because the “[t]wo individuals associated with the lab have been federally indicted. Significant assets of the Defendant have been seized by the Federal Government. As a result, the Defendant has stopped all business operations and has not had the ability to pay counsel.” Thus, as all requirements to the motion are met, the motion is granted.

 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defense Counsel’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of proof of service of this court’s order relieving Counsel, sent to Plaintiff, Defendant, and all other parties who have appeared in the case.