Gibbs v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

The Court excuses the personal appearance of the Claimants. Counsel and Guardians Ad Litem may appear in person or by LA Court Connect.

The Court has reviewed the petitions for approval of minors' compromises for claimants Madylin Rose Vasquez (Age 5), and Noemi Venecia Muralles (Age 3), filed on July 20. All substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied. The proposed settlement and the proposed fees are fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petitions for Approval of Minor's Compromise for Claimants Madylin Rose Vasquez (Age 5), and Noemi Venecia Muralles (Age 3). The Court APPROVES the proposed orders submitted on July 20. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

The Court notes that no Notice of Settlement of Entire Case (CM-200) has been filed. Pending the filing of the Notice of Settlement (or entry of a request for dismissal), the trial date and final status conference date remain on calendar.

The Court understands the argument that trying this matter before the Seeley v. Zenith Homes case pending in Riverside County Superior Court is resolved would be premature and would potentially involve an inefficient expenditure of judicial resources. But trial is not scheduled until August 23, 2027. Should discovery proceed here so that once the Seely litigation is resolved this case may proceed to trial promptly? And, if Defendants believe that they have a dispositive statute of limitations defense, should Defendants be permitted to file a summary judgment on that issue?

Case Number: 25STCV31940 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 514 Gibbs v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Defendant Marquez Mitchell's Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Case Management Conference Tentative

The hearing on the demurrer is continued so that the parties can satisfy the statutory requirement to meet and confer. The Court will call this matter and proceed with the Case Management Conference.

Background

This case arises out of an employment relationship. On November 3, 2025, Brittney Gibbs ("Plaintiff") filed the complaint in this action. On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") against United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"), Marquez Mitchell ("Mitchell"), Jim Perez ("Perez"), and Does 1 through 25, asserting causes of action for (1) gender/pregnancy discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the "FEHA"); (2) retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA; (4) failure to accommodate in violation of the FEHA; (5) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of the FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (7) harassment in violation of the FEHA; (8) failure to produce personnel file under Labor Code section 1198.5; and (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On May 12, 2026, the Court sustained the demurrer of Defendant UPS to the Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action in the FAC (without leave to amend) and overruled UPS's demurrer to the Seventh Cause of Action. On May 26, 2026, Defendant UPS filed its answer to the FAC. On June 3, 2026, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed Defendant Perez. On June 4, 2026, Defendant Mitchell filed this demurrer to the FAC. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 4, and Defendant Mitchell filed a reply on August 11. No trial date has been set.

Discussion

Before filing a demurrer, "the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.41, subd. (a).) This requirement is not met. (See Prine Decl., P.P. 9-10.) Accordingly, the hearing is continued so that the parties may meet and confer as required by statute.

Conclusion

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the demurrer of Defendant Marquez Mitchell to September __, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 514 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The Court ORDERS counsel for Plaintiff and for Defendant Mitchell to meet and confer as required by statute no less than 14 days prior to the new hearing date. The Court ORDERS counsel for Defendant Mitchell to file a declaration demonstrating compliance with the statutory meet and confer requirement by no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date. Moving party is ordered to give notice. The Court will call this case and proceed with the Case Management Conference.

Case Number: 26STCV00686 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 514 Vogt v. Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC 26STCV00686 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Gabriel Schmidt to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted in part, denied in part, and denied as moot in part.

Background

This action arises out of an employment relationship. On January 9, 2026, Danielle Vogt ("Plaintiff") filed the complaint in this action against Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC ("Centinela"), Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. ("PHSI"), Gabriel Schmidt ("Schmidt"), and Does 1 through 10, asserting causes of action for: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the "FEHA"); (2) retaliation in violation of Labor Code sections 1102.5, et seq.; (3) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (4) violation of Labor Code section 232.5; (5) violation of Labor Code section 98.6; (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (7) failure to prevent and/or remedy harassment and retaliation in violation of the FEHA; and (8) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of employee.

On March 10, 2026, Defendant Centinela filed an answer to the complaint. On March 11, 2026, Defendant PHSI filed an answer to the complaint. On April 3, 2026, Defendant Schmidt filed an answer to the complaint. On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Defendant Schmidt to provide further responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One). Plaintiff does not seek sanctions. Defendant Schmidt filed an opposition on August 5, and Plaintiff filed a reply on August 11. Trial is set for March 20, 2028.

Legal Standard

"On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.310, subd. (a).)