Ada-Saucedo v. Pragmatic Communications Systems CA6

Filed 12/13/13 Ada-Saucedo v. Pragmatic Communications Systems CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ALEXA ADA-SAUCEDO, H038021 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 1-09-CV154573)

v.

PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., et al,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Alexa Ada-Saucedo brought this action for breach of contract, sexual harassment, and related claims arising out of her employment at Pragmatic Communications Systems, Inc. (Pragmatic). After a court trial at which she represented herself, judgment was entered in defendants' favor. Plaintiff appeals, contending that she was prejudiced by the court's errors in denying her request to postpone the trial, excluding critical evidence, rushing her during trial, and favoring defendants by helping them with their testimony. Because plaintiff has not established a legal basis for overturning the trial court's verdict, we must affirm the judgment. Background Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on October 9, 2009, naming Pragmatic; its president, Prasanna Shah; and her supervisor, Eddie Raymundo. In her first amended complaint, filed February 26, 2010, plaintiff specifically alleged (1) breach of contract

(against Pragmatic); (2) violation of public policies against employment discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination;1 (3) sexual harassment; (4) failure to prevent sexual harassment; (5) retaliation for complaining about employment discrimination and harassment; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.2 Plaintiff specifically accused Pragmatic of breaking an oral promise to raise her salary from $12 to $15 an hour after the 90-day probationary period (ending June 10, 2008), to provide health insurance and sales commissions, and to protect her from harassment in the workplace. In addition, plaintiff was not paid for the time she waited outside the office until someone could let her into the building. In the second, third, and fourth causes of action she alleged that Raymundo had sexually harassed her and that Pragmatic and Shah had failed to prevent or end it. In the fifth cause of action, plaintiff alleged retaliation and discrimination against her after she complained about the sexual harassment. Finally, plaintiff asserted that defendants' wrongful conduct—including the act of terminating her in retaliation for "opposing sexual harassment"—had subjected her to severe emotional distress. Plaintiff had counsel beginning in June 2010, but in early February of 2011, he asked to be relieved as counsel, citing an "irreparable" deterioration of the attorney-client relationship. On March 28, 2011, the court granted the motion over plaintiff's objection, and plaintiff represented herself from that point on. Trial began on November 28, 2011, following the conclusion of settlement efforts on November 23. Plaintiff testified in her case in chief, as did Raymundo, Shah, and