Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reyna v. Winery

March 30, 2009

MARK REYNA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GALLO WINERY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff Mark Reyna ("Plaintiff") filed the instant Motions to Amend the Complaint and Remand the Action. The matter was heard on March 27, 2009, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Mina Ramirez appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Katherine Boyd appeared on behalf of Defendant Gallo Winery ("Defendant").

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the underlying employment action in Stanislaus Superior Court on July 23, 2008. Defendant removed the action to this Court on January 8, 2009, based on Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 141, et seq. ("LMRA"). Defendant answered the complaint on January 13, 2009.

On February 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed Motions to File a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and Remand the Action. His Motion to Remand is predicated on the assumption that the Court will grant his Motion to File a FAC

Defendant opposed the motions on March 13, 2009, and Plaintiff filed his replies on March 20, 2009.

ALLEGATIONS AND CAUSES OF ACTION

According to the complaint, Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant in July 2000 as a line worker. He was a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 186D ("UFCW") and his employment was covered by a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU").

During his employment, Plaintiff suffered a wrist injury and was certified for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. ("FMLA") and the California Family Rights Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.2 ("CFRA"). He further alleges that his girlfriend (and later, his wife), who was also employed by Defendant, was diagnosed with cancer and Plaintiff was allowed FMLA/CFRA leave to care for her in June 2006. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made it difficult for him to take his leave.

After being off for a month, Plaintiff returned to work under a new team leader who he alleges intentionally assigned him tasks that he could not do. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff requested time off after caring for his wife or working many days in a row. His requests were refused and he was forced to perform tasks that his team leader knew he could not do. On two occasions, Plaintiff attempted to perform the tasks but could not and left work. Plaintiff alleges that the team leader refused to reassign him and refused to contact a union representative or human resources manager. On August 23, 2006, Plaintiff was called to the office to discuss "FMLA fraud" and his work badge was taken.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff states causes of action for (1) termination in violation of public policy (FMLA/CFRA); (2) employment discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900, et seq. ("FEHA"); (3) breach of contract based on the MOU; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the MOU; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress based on deprivation of rights under FEHA and CFRA; (6) violations of CFRA; (7) failure to take reasonable steps to end discrimination under FEHA; and (8) prohibited business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

Plaintiff requests monetary damages and injunctive relief.

DISCUSSION

A. Section 301 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.