DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV433018·santaclara·Civil·Civil
Hearing in 3 daysGRANTED

ZCA Homes v. Venko Gospodinova, et.al.

Motion to withdraw as counsel

Hearing date
Sep 8, 2026
Department
6
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffZCA Homes
DefendantVenko Gospodinova
DefendantRosita Gospodinova

Attorneys

Tanner Brinkfor Defendant

Ruling

4 9:00 8 26CV489051 Citibank vs. Jeannie Chan See below. 9:01 1 24CV433018 ZCA Homes v. Venko Gospodinova, et.al. Attorney for Defendant Rosita Gospodinova moves to withdraw as counsel. Ms. Rosita Gospodinova passed away. Attorney Tanner Brink’ s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 9:01 2 24CV439264 Kirsty Graham vs. Jose Rivas Plaintiff petitions this court for approval of compromise of claim for minor. Plaintiff is the Guardian Ad Litem for Lacey Graham who is a minor. The minor is a victim in an automobile accident that was settled. Plaintiff’s petition is GRANTED.

Calendar Line 7 Case Name: Mihretab Yifter v. Universal Protection Service, LP et al. Case No.: 26CV485862

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Mihretab Yifter (“Plaintiff”) alleges Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP dba Allied Universal Security Services (“Defendant”) terminated him in retaliation for protected activity. On August 7, 2025, Plaintiff raised complaints of discriminatory and unfair treatment with Human Resources. (Complaint at ¶ 33.) That same day, the company removed him from his assigned worksite. (Id. at ¶ 49.) The following morning, Plaintiff had been barred from the worksite altogether. (Id. at ¶ 51.)

Plaintiff was instructed to return his uniform and was not provided with any re-assignment. (Id. at ¶ 55.) Plaintiff was formally separated from his employment on September 30, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 65.) Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department and obtained a Right-to-Sue notice on November 19, 2025. Plaintiff filed suit on February 2, 2026. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges four causes of action for: (1) retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (3) failure to prevent retaliation; and (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share