TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues 1-17 is denied.
Defendant’s objections have not been considered as they do not comply with the requirements of CRC 3.1354.
Procedural History This motion was previously continued because plaintiff’s responsive Separate Statement was incorrectly numbered and because defendant failed to properly make written objections to plaintiff’s evidence. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended separate statement and amended P&A's correcting the numbering issue and defendant filed objections along with an amended reply separate statement. Accordingly, the court will now reach the merits.
Background Plaintiff was a dental assistant who worked as “contingent” employee for defendant. This “contingent” status meant plaintiff was not guaranteed any hours and she was scheduled according to the needs of defendant and plaintiff’s availability. Plaintiff testified that from March 2014 th
Hearing Date
November 22, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues 1-17 is denied.
Defendant’s objections have not been considered as they do not comply with the requirements of CRC 3.1354.
Procedural History This motion was previously continued because plaintiff’s responsive Separate Statement was incorrectly numbered and because defendant failed to properly make written objections to plaintiff’s evidence. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended separate statement and amended P&A's correcting the numbering issue and defendant filed objections along with an amended reply separate statement. Accordingly, the court will now reach the merits.
Background Plaintiff was a dental assistant who worked as “contingent” employee for defendant. This “contingent” status meant plaintiff was not guaranteed any hours and she was scheduled according to the needs of defendant and plaintiff’s availability. Plaintiff testified that from March 2014 th