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.

Fonseca v. Wal Mart Associates, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 5, 2019

Jesus Fonseca
v.
Wal Mart Associates, Inc., et al.

          Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt. No. 14); (2) DENYING as MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 15); (3) DENYING as MOOT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 8); (4) REMANDING the Matter; and (5) VACATING the July 8, 2019 Hearing (IN CHAMBERS)

         Before the Court are three motions: (1) Plaintiff Jesus Fonseca's motion for leave to amend his complaint (“Motion for Leave, ” Dkt. No. 14); (2) Plaintiff's motion to remand (“Remand Motion, ” Dkt. No. 15); and (3) Defendants Wal Mart Associates, Inc. and Walmart Inc.'s (collectively, “Wal-Mart” or “Defendant”) motion to dismiss (“Motion to Dismiss, ” Dkt. No. 8). The Court finds these matters appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motions, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, DENIES as MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, DENIES as MOOT Wal-Mart's Motion to Dismiss, and VACATES the July 8, 2019 hearing.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On March 28, 2018 Plaintiffs filed this action against Wal-Mart in the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. (“Complaint, ” Dkt. No. 1-2.) The Complaint alleges ten causes of action: (1) disability discrimination (Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(a)); (2) failure to accommodate (Cal. Govt. Code § 12940 (m)); (3) failure to engage in the interactive process (Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(n)); (4) retaliation under FEHA (Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(h)); (5) failure to prevent discrimination (Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(k)); (6) interference under CFRA (Cal. Govt. Code § 12945.2(t)); (7) retaliation under CFRA (Cal. Govt. Code § 12945.2(1)(1)); (8) hostile work environment § 12940(j)); (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (10) negligent infliction of emotional distress. (See Complaint.) On April 2, 2019, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (“Notice, ” Dkt. No. 1.)

         II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

         Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave on May 28, 2019. (See Mot. for Leave.) In support of his Motion, Plaintiff filed the following documents:

• Declaration of Mohamed Eldessouky (“Eldessouky Declaration, ” Dkt. No. 14-1);
• Proposed First Amended Complaint (“Proposed FAC, ” Dkt. No. 14-1);
• Proposed FAC with Tracked Changes (“Exhibit B, ” Dkt. No. 14-1); and
• Proposed Order (Dkt. No. 14-2).

         Wal-Mart opposed the Motion for Leave on June 17, 2019. (“Opp'n, ” Dkt. No. 17.) In support of its Opposition, Wal-Mart submitted the following documents:

• Declaration of Tisha Snyder (“Snyder Declaration, ” Dkt. No. 17-1); and
• Declaration of Aderoju Ogunlana (“Ogunlana Declaration, ...

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.