Azucena Tapia v. Artistree, Inc. et al
| Azucena Tapia |
| Michaels, Inc., Does and Artistree, Inc. |
| 2:2014cv01381 |
| February 24, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dean D. Pregerson |
| Alka Sagar |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
30
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Court GRANTS the Motion as to all causes of action against Defendant Michaels for absence of a valid FEHA claim WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court reaffirms its previous order and GRANTS the Motion as to Plaintiffs fifth cause of action WITH PREJUDICE, to the extent that Plaintiffs fifth cause of action relies on Cal. Gov. Code 12945(a)(1). (lc). Modified on 7/25/2014 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 12 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. For the reasons stated in the Order, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to Defendant Michaels WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any amended complaint must be filed by April 28, 2014 and must address the deficiencies identified in this Order. The Court DENIES the Motion as to Defendant Artistree, except that the Court GRANTS the Motion to the extent that Plaintiff's fifth cause of action relies on her not receiving the four months of leave promised by Cal. Gov. Code § 12945(a)(1). SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (cch)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
