Seldon vs. Toyo Suisan Kaisha, LTD.

103 Seldon vs. Toyo Suisan Kaisha, LTD.

2026-01561704 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

The application for pro hac vice admission of attorney Joshua R. Harris, filed by Plaintiffs (1) Deelacee Seldon individually and as Guardian ad litem on behalf of C.P., a minor; (2) Destiny Sewell individually and as Guardian ad litem on behalf of A.P., a minor; (3) Shannon Pinkard individually and as Guardian ad litem on behalf of I.D., a minor; and (4) Jameiqua Mitchell individually and as Guardian ad litem on behalf of J.M., a minor, is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED upon counsel’s submission, within 3 court days of this ruling, of a declaration attesting that the applicable fees have been paid to the State Bar of California pursuant to Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e).

On or before the anniversary of the date of this order, if this attorney remains counsel for the moving parties, the moving parties must pay an annual renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that the attorney maintains pro hac vice status in this case. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (e)(2).)

Moving party shall provide notice. 104 Amy Lee Thissell vs. Tenet Healthcare Corporation

2024-01383912 1. Motion to Compel Arbitration 2. Case Management Conference

Defendants Tenet Healthcare Corporation and Tenet Physician Resources LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is GRANTED.

Defendants’ evidentiary objections (ROA #125) are OVERRULED in its entirety.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff Amy Lee Thissell does not dispute that the subject arbitration agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); that she has refused arbitration; that the arbitration agreement exists; and that the arbitration agreement applies to her individual claims alleged in this action. Plaintiff also does not contend that, if the Court orders Plaintiff to arbitrate her individual claims, that her class claims should not be dismissed.

Plaintiff opposes the motion on three basic grounds: (1) Defendants have waived their right to enforce the arbitration agreement; (2) the agreement is unconscionable; and (3) even if the Court were to enforce the agreement, Plaintiff’s PAGA claim cannot be split into individual and representative claims, and in any event, the representative PAGA claim should not be stayed pending arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim.