DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CV67781·tuolumne·Civil·Wrongful Termination
GRANTED

Anna Gilles vs. Foothill Sierra Pest Control

OSC re Sanctions

Hearing date
May 6, 2026
Department
5
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Motion for Sanctions

Causes of action

Wrongful Termination

Monetary amounts referenced

$225.00

Parties

PlaintiffAnna Gilles
DefendantFoothill Sierra Pest Control
DefendantTrevor Cuthill

Ruling

This is the continued hearing in a wrongful termination case involving a myriad of claims made by the plaintiff against her employer and what appears to be a co-worker. It is generally alleged that the co-worker subjected plaintiff to an unwanted, and certainly weird, interaction involving a banana. After reporting the incident to management, plaintiff was terminated.

An earlier CMC was aborted due to defense counsel’s absence – prompting counsel for plaintiff to request sanctions. The salient history is as follows: o On 10/31/2025, defendant received a service package, which included date of the initial CMC on the TUO-CV-100; o On 01/27/2026, defense counsel filed and served a CMC statement indicating an intention to appear in person at the initial CMC; o On 02/04/2026, defense counsel received via email a CMC statement from plaintiff’s counsel, indicating his intention to appear at the initial CMC by telephone; o Defense counsel did not appear at the initial CMC. Counsel states in his declaration that his office inadvertently removed the hearing from the office calendar, but does not say when that occurred or what other case was in fact removed from calendar, if that was in this courthouse, or any other information. The opposing declaration is too vague to find that the absence was anything but ordinary attorney error – which CCP §473(b) does not provide safe passage for. o In terms of the amount, counsel’s time estimate devoted to the initial hearing (1.6 hrs) is probably accurate but the case notes posted online in advance of that hearing clearly indicated that the CMC was likely to be continued anyway. Thus, there was no need to “prepare” anything of substance for the hearing. Thir ty minutes was more than enough brain power. As for the fee, while plaintiff’s counsel no doubt commands $900/hr down on South Fig, up here in the sticks he going rate for employment discrimination is $450/hr (max). Defense counsel shall immediately cut a check to plaintiff’s counsel for $225.00 pursuant to CRC 2.30 and 3.722(c).

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash 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?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share