Castle v. Target Corporation

Filing 24

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/24/14 ORDERING that the Pretrial Scheduling Order in this matter be amended to permit the filing of the Amended Complaint for Damages, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and to extend the discovery cut-off in this 9/18/2014.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3

Andrew J. Morrissey, Esq. (SBN 156827)
Sara M. Knowles, Esq. (SBN 216139)
LELAND, SCHULTZ & MORRISSEY &
KNOWLES LLP
1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6
Chico, CA 95928

4
5

Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6

Attorney for Plaintiff Vernisha Castle

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

VERNISHA CASTLE, an individual,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TARGET CORPORATION, a Corporation; )
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00648-MCE-DAD
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE
MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER TO PERMIT
FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF
Trial Date: May 18, 2015

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Vernisha Castle (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Target
Corporation (“Defendant”) and jointly submit this Stipulation re Modification of Pretrial
Scheduling Order to Permit Filing of Amended Complaint and extend discovery cut-off in
the above-entitled matter.
The parties seek Court approval to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order in this
matter to permit the filing of an Amended Complaint for Damages, a true and correct copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order filed in
this matter on August 16, 2013 indicates, “No joinder of parties or amendments to
pleadings is permitted without leave of Court, good cause having been shown” (See
Pretrial Scheduling Order, 1:22-24).

28
28

1
_____________________________________________________________________________________

1

New counsel for Plaintiff was permitted to substitute in as counsel of record in this

2

matter via Consent Order signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on April 8, 2014. New

3

counsel, in reviewing the existing pleadings, thereafter determined that no request for

4

attorney’s fees had been set forth in the Fifth Cause of Action of the original pleading

5

(seeking unpaid wages). Since California Labor Code Sec. 218.5 allows Plaintiff to seek

6

recovery of attorney’s fees in a cause of action for unpaid wages, and without making any

7

admissions with respect to the underlying claim, the parties hereby stipulate to a

8

modification of the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order for submission of the amended

9

pleading and also stipulate that the attached Amended Complaint for Damages may be

10
11

filed in the underlying matter.
Further, the parties hereby stipulate to extending the discovery cut-off date in this

12

matter to September 18, 2014. Good cause exists for extension of the discovery cut-off in

13

this case due to new counsel’s recent substitution via Consent Order executed on April 8,

14

2014. Since the date of the substitution, counsel for the parties have been working

15

diligently and cooperatively to complete pertinent written discovery and depositions in a

16

timely manner. However, an additional sixty (60) days will facilitate a full investigation of

17

the facts and circumstances surrounding the case and, conceivably, an early resolution of

18

this matter.

19

SO STIPULATED.

20
21

DATED: June 10, 2014

22

By /s/ Andrew J. Morrissey
ANDREW J. MORRISSEY
Attorney for Plaintiff Vernisha Castle

23
24
25
26
27
28
28

LELAND, SCHULTZ, MORRISSEY &
KNOWLES, LLP

DATED: June 10, 2014

CAROTHERS, DISANTE &
FREUDENBERGER, LLP
By /s/ Nicole A. Legrottaglie
NICOLE A. LEGROTTAGLIE
Attorney for Defendant Target Corporation

2
_____________________________________________________________________________________

1
2

ORDER
GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, the Court hereby orders that the Pretrial

3

Scheduling Order in this matter be amended to permit the filing of the Amended Complaint

4

for Damages, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and to extend the discovery cut-off in this

5

case to September 18, 2014.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 24, 2014

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28

3
_____________________________________________________________________________________

1
2
3
4
5
6

Andrew J. Morrissey, Esq. (SBN 156827)
Sara M. Knowles, Esq. (SBN 216139)
LELAND, SCHULTZ & MORRISSEY &
KNOWLES LLP
1660 Humboldt Road, Suite 6
Chico, CA 95928
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff Vernisha Castle

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

VERNISHA CASTLE, an individual,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-00648 MCE-DAD
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
FOR:

v.

1. Violation of the California Family
Rights Act;

TARGET CORPORATION., a
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,

2. Violation of the Pregnancy Disability
Leave Law;

Defendants.

3. Violation of the Family Medical Leave
Act;

17
18

4. Wrongful Termination

19
5. Unpaid Wages
20
Jury Trial Demanded

21

Trial Date: May 18, 2015

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Vernisha Castle (“Plaintiff”) complains and alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
1. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000), exclusive of interests and costs.
2. Plaintiff is a California resident residing in San Joaquin County.

28
4
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A

1

3. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that Target Corporation

2

(“Target”) is a corporation operating in the State of California, County of San Joaquin.

3

4. Plaintiff is informed, believes, thereon alleges, that Defendants, and each and all of

4

them, at all relevant times hereinafter mentioned were the agents, employees, servants,

5

,joint venturers, parent companies, successor companies, directors, fiduciaries,

6

representatives, and/or co-conspirators of each of the remaining defendants (collectively

7

“Defendants”). Defendants, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the

8

course and scope of such relationship (unless otherwise alleged) and were responsible in

9

some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and are a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s

10
11

damages as herein alleged.
5. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, whether individual,

12

corporate, associate are otherwise unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues such

13

defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section

14

474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the DOE Defendants are

15

California residents. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show their true names and

16

capacities when they have been ascertained.

17

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants

18

designated herein by a fictitious name is negligently, intentionally, or otherwise responsible

19

in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently,

20

intentionally, or otherwise caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as hereinafter

21

alleged.

22
23
24
25
26

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Plaintiff worked for Defendant approximately two years implementing the store’s
“planograms”.
8. In approximately August 2012, Plaintiff informed her team lead, Joanna, that she
was pregnant.

27

9. Unfortunately, on September 9th Plaintiff suffered a miscarriage.

28

10. Plaintiff called Joanna the morning she miscarried to let her know Plaintiff require

28
5
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A

1
2
3

surgery and would be off of work approximately two weeks.
11. Joanna expressed sympathy and told Plaintiff to keep her update regarding her
condition.

4

12. Plaintiff had surgery on September 18.

5

13. Both prior to and following her surgery Plaintiff and her fiancé, who is also a Target

6

employee, both kept Target apprised of Plaintiff’s medical condition and return to work

7

status.

8
9

14. Plaintiff was able to return to work on September 26th and she advised Joanna of
this in advance.

10

15. Plaintiff reported to work on September 26th and completed her shift but after work

11

she was terminated by her supervisor and the store manager for being absent from work

12

the previous two weeks.

13
14

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
16. On or about January 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair

15

Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) alleging violations of the Fair Employment and

16

Housing Act (“FEHA”) and California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) by Defendant and

17

requested an immediate right to sue letter.

18

17. Plaintiff received a right to sue letter from the DFEH dated January 21, 2013.

19

18. Plaintiff has exhausted all required administrative remedies under the FEHA and

20
21
22
23
24
25

CFRA.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of the California Family Rights Act
(California Governance Code § 12945.2)
[As Against Defendants Target and DOES 1-10]
19. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 118, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.

26

20. Plaintiff’s leave of absence qualified for protection under the CFRA.

27

21. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that she was terminated, at least

28

in part, for having exercised her right to take protected leave under the CFRA and/or in

28
6
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A

1
2

retaliation for taking that leave.
22. As a proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to

3

suffer losses of earnings, and other benefits of employment, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an

4

amount according to proof at trial.

5

23. As a further, proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered, and

6

continues to suffer, severe emotional distress and lasting humiliation, embarrassment, and

7

mental anguish, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses, all to

8

Plaintiff’s damage in an amount according to proof at trial.

9

24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants committed

10

the acts described herein deliberately, callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an

11

oppressive manner intended to injure Plaintiff, with an improper and evil motive amounting

12

to malice and spite caused by Defendants’ animosity, bias, and hatred of Plaintiff, and was

13

done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

14
15

25. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs of suit under
California Government Code § 12970.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law
(California Government Code § 12945)
[As Against Defendants Target and DOES 1-10]
26. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 118, inclusive, and incorporates the same reference as though fully set forth herein.
27. Plaintiff’s leave of absence qualified for protection under California’s Pregnancy
Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”).
28. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that she was terminated, at least

25

in part, for having exercised her right to take protected leave under the PDLL and/or in

26

retaliation for taking that leave.

27

29. Defendant also failed to reinstate Plaintiff to her former position with Defendant.

28

30. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to

28
7
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A

1

suffer, severe emotional distress and lasting humiliation, embarrassment, and mental

2

anguish, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses, all to Plaintiff’s

3

damage in an amount according to proof at trial.

4

31. As a further, proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered, and

5

continues to suffer, severe emotional distress and lasting humiliation, embarrassment, and

6

mental anguish, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses, all to

7

Plaintiff’s damage in an amount according to proof at trial.

8
9

32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants committed
that acts described herein deliberately, callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an

10

oppressive manner intended to injure Plaintiff, with an improper and evil motive amounting

11

to malice and spite caused by Defendants’ animosity, bias, and hatred of Plaintiff, and was

12

done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

13
14

33. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs of suit under
California Government Code § 12970.

15
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of the Family Medical Leave Act
(29 USC § 2615, et. al.)
[As Against Defendant Target and DOES 5-15]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 118, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.
35. The leave which Plaintiff took qualified as a protected leave under the Family
Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).
36. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that she was terminated, at least
in part, for having taken her protected leave of absence.
37. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of applicable law outlined herein.

26

Plaintiff has suffered a loss of wages, salary, employment benefits, interest and other

27

compensation.

28

38. Defendants’ wrongful actions were made in bad faith, they did not have reasonable

28
8
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A

1

grounds for believing their conduct was not in violation of the FMLA and Plaintiff therefore

2

requests an award of liquidated damages under 29 USC § 2617(a)(1)(A)(ii).

3
4

39. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs of suit under 29
USC § 2617(a)(3).

5
6
7
8
9
10

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Wrongful Termination
[As Against Defendant Target and DOES 1-15]
40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 139, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though full set forth herein.
41. As a California employee, Plaintiff was protected by the fundamental, basic, and

11

substantial public policies found in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,

12

California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law, California Family Rights Act, Family Medical

13

Leave Act, California Government Code § 12940, et. seq. and the California Constitution.

14
15
16

42. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that motivating factors in
Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff were in violation of these enumerated public policies.
43. As a proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to

17

suffer losses of earnings, and other benefits of employment, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an

18

amount according to proof at trial.

19

44. As a further, proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered, and

20

continues to suffer, severe emotional distress and lasting humiliation, embarrassment, and

21

mental anguish, and other incidental and consequential damages and expenses, all to

22

Plaintiff’s damage in an amount according to proof at trial.

23

45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant committed

24

the acts described herein deliberately, callously, maliciously, fraudulently and in an

25

oppressive manner intended to injure Plaintiff, with an improper and evil motive amounting

26

to malice and spite cause by Defendants’ animosity, bias, and hatred of Plaintiff, and was

27

done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

28
28
9
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unpaid Wages
(California Labor Code §§ 201-203)
[As Against Defendants Target and DOES 5-20]

1
2
3
4

46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

5

18, inclusive, and incorporates the same by reference as though fully set forth herein.

6

47. Plaintiff has not received her final paycheck since being terminated from her

7
8

employment by Defendants.
48. Plaintiff is entitled to recover “waiting time” penalties under Labor Code § 203 as a

9

penalty for Defendant’s failure to pay her earned wages immediately upon termination.

10

49. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees for Defendant’s failure to pay her

11

earned wages pursuant to California Labor Code Section § 218.5.

12
13
14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. For actual damages, including loss of past and future earning, bonuses, deferred

15

compensation, and other employment benefits, in an amount according to proof at

16

trial;

17
18

2. For consequential and incidental damages and expenses in an amount according to
proof at trial;

19

3. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, all at the legal prevailing rate;

20

4. For general and special damages, including but not limited to, emotional distress,

21

loss of reputation, and medical expenses in an amount according to proof at trial;

22

5. For penalties under California Labor Code § 203;

23

6. For liquidated damages under FMLA;

24
25
26

7. For attorney’s fees according to proof;
8. For punitive damages, in an amount according to proof at trial; and
9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and equitable.

27
28
28
10
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A

1

Dated: June ___, 2014

LELAND, SCHULTZ, MORRISSEY & KNOWLES LLP

2
3
4

By: ____________________________________
Andrew J. Morrissey
Attorneys for Plaintiff Vernisha Castle

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
11
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A

1

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2
3
4

Plaintiff hereby demands her constitutional right to trial by jury for all triable issues in
the above-entitled action.

5
6

Dated: June ___, 2014

LELAND, SCHULTZ, MORRISSEY & KNOWLES LLP

7
8
9

By: ____________________________________
Andrew J. Morrissey
Attorneys for Plaintiff Vernisha Castle

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
12
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit A