rVuD

tHDOBseo
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ARENT FOX LLP
ATTORNEYS A T LAW Los A N C B I Vi

Harry I. Johnson, III (SBN 200257) Stanley G. Stringfellow II (SBN 259047) ARENT FOX LLP 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065 Telephone: 213.629.7400 Facsimile. 213.629.7401 Email: johnson.harry@arentfox.com stringfellow.stanley(^arentfox.com Attomeys for Defendants PANDA EXPRESS, INC., PANDA EXPRESS, LLC, PANDA INN, INC., PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., HIBACHI-SAN, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SOKPHY TIN, Plaintiff,

V.

CASE NO. 34-2010-00090959 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEM PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES COURT RULE 3.1308 AND LOCAL RULE 3.04(D) Date: Time: Depf Ref. No.: June 29, 2011 2:00 p.m. 53 1530457

PANDA EXPRESS, INC., PANDA EXPRESS, LLC, PANDA INN, INC., PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., HIBACHI-SAN, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.

Action Filed: Nov. 4, 2010 Trial Date. None yet Law & Mot. Judge: Kevin R. Culhane (Dept 53) Case Mgmt. Progr.: Robert C. Hight (Dept. 44)

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ARENT FOX LLP
ATTORNEYS A T L A W Los ANCHI E S

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEM TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, because Defendants' Notice of Motion did not provide notice ofthe Court's tentative ruling system as required by Califomia Rules of Court Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 3.04(D), the Court ordered, in its tentative mling on Defendants' demurrer, a copy of which is attached to this Notice as Exhibit "A," that Defendamts give Plaintiff notice ofthe tentative mling system. Defendants therefore give notice to Plaintiff that, pursuant to Local Rule 3.04, the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. Plaintiff may access and download the court's mling from the court's website at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov. If Plaintiff does not have online access, she may obtain the tentative ruling over the telephone by calling (916) 874-8142 and a deputy clerk will read the mlmg to her. f Plaintiff wishes to request oral argument, she must contact the clerk at (916) 874-7858 Department 53) or (916) 874-7848 (Department 54) and the opposing party before 4:00 p m. the court day before the hearing. If she does not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m on he court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

-1NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ARENT Fox LLP
ATTORNHYS AT LAW Los ANGBLES

The Court further ordered Defendants to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event the opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 3.04(B) because their Notice of Motion did not provide the requisite notice ofthe tentative mling system. Therefore, Defendants will be available at the hearing by telephone by and through their counsel of record, Harry I. Johnson, III, unless Plaintiff advises Defendants in writing of her intent not to appear at the demurrer hearing and consents to Defendants notifying the Court ofthe same.

Dated: June 28, 2011

ARENT F

Stanley G. Stringfello| Attomeys for Defenda PANDA EXPRESS, INC., PANDA EXPRESS, LLC, PANDA INN, INC., PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., HIBACHI-SAN, INC.

-2NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEM

EXHIBIT "A"

Glico Transportation & Accounting, Inc to Provide Further Answers to Post-Judgment Special Interrogatories (Set One) is unopposed and is GRANTED. The request for imposition of sanctions is denied, as the motion is not opposed. Code Civil Procedure sections 708.020, 2023.010. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3 1348 purports to authorize sanctions if the motion IS unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions underthe CR.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd v. Firmaterr, Inc (1997) 60 Cal App 4th 352, 355. However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse ofthe discovery process and award sanctions on that basis Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal App. 3d 481 Judgment Debtor Sanjay Dagar d.b.a. Gilco Transportation & Accounting, Inc. shall provide counsel for the Judgment Creditor with verified, further written answers to interrogatories not later than Monday, July 11, 2011. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order nor further notice is required, the tentative ruling providing sufficient notice

Item 18

2010-00090959-CU-OE Sokphy Tin vs. Panda Express, Inc. Nature of Proceeding. Heanng on Demurrer Filed By Johnson III, Harry I.

Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint is OVERRULED. The notice of motion does not provide notice ofthe Court's tentative ruling system as required by with C R.C , Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 3.04(D) Local Rules for the Sacramento Superior Court are available on the Court's website at <http://www saccourt.ca.aov/local-rules/local-rules.aspx> Counsel for moving party is ordered to notify opposing party immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 3.04(B). Plaintiff's complaint sets forth four causes of action against defendants: the 1 ^' for pregnancy/sex discrimination, the 2"" for retaliation, the 3'^' for failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation and the 4"^ for adverse action in violation of public policy Defendants demur to each cause of action on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and on the grounds of uncertainty. Demurrer to the 1^* for pregnancy/sex discrimination is OVERRULED. A plaintiff employee who claims discrimination must allege a prima facie case, that she was within the class protected from discrimination and was performing her job competently, but was terminated, plus some other circumstance suggesting discriminatory motive. Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005)135 Cal. App. 4th 1088,1097

The Court finds that the facts alleged in paras. 10-64, and incorporated by reference into each cause of action (with regard to "incorporation by reference", see e.g Republic Bank v. Marine Nat Bank (1996) 45 Cal App. 4th 919, 922), including the negative comments by a number of plaintiffs supervisors about her pregnancies and her children, are sufficient to raise an inference that the adverse employment actions taken against plaintiff by defendants were based upon her gender/pregnancy. Demurrer to the 2""* cause of action for retaliation, is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. Plaintiff informed her general manager of her pregnancy m November 2008 Plaintiff has failed to allege that her termination in February 2009, has any nexus to her request for time off for her prior pregnancies, under the California Family Rights Act Demurrer to the 3'^ cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination and/or retaliation is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend as to the retaliation allegations. Demurrer to the 4"^ cause of action for adverse action in violation of public policy, is OVERRULED Discrimination based on pregnancy has been sufficiently alleged Plaintiff may have leave to file and serve her first Amended Complaint not later than Monday, July 11, 2011. The responsive pleading shall be due 10 days thereafter (15 days if service is by mail). This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order nor further notice is required, the tentative ruling providing sufficient notice

Item 19

2010-00091254-CU-FR Ronnie J. Graham vs. JPMorgan Chase Bank Nature of Proceeding. Hearing on Demurrer Filed By Depuy, Bnttany

Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank and Chase Home Finance LLC's Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint is unopposed but is DROPPED from calendar The entire action as to all parties was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on May 5, 2011

Item 20

2011-00094668-CU-PA Bethia Argueta Marchorro vs. Richard Ralph Kidder Nature of Proceeding' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Admissions Filed By Loewen, Michael R This matter is dropped from calendar

1 2

SOKPHY TIN V PANDA EXPRESS, INC. ETAL Sacramento Superior Court Case No.: 34-2010-00090959 PROOF OF SERVICE

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28
ARENT FOX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Los ANCBLHS

I am a citizen ofthe United States. My business address is Arent Fox LLP, 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, Califomia 90013-1065. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles where this service occurs. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within cause. On the date set forth below, according to ordinary business practice, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING SYSTEM PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES COURT RULE 3.1308 AND LOCAL RULE 3.04(D) [V] '' (BY FAX) I transmitted via facsimile, from facsimile number 213 629 7401, the document(s) to the person(s) on the attached service list at the fax number(s) set forth therein, on this date before 5-00 p.rn. A statement that this transmission was reported as complete and properly issued by the sending fax machine without error is attached to this Proof of Service. (BY E-MAIL) On this date, I personally transmitted the foregoing document(s) via electronic mail to the e-mail address(es) ofthe person(s) on the attached service list. (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service, and that practice is that correspondence is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business On this date, I placed the document(s) in envelopes addressed to the person(s) on the attached service list and sealed and placed the envelopes for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) On this date, I delivered by hand envelope(s) containing the document(s) to the persons(s) on the attached service list. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) On this date, I placed the documents in envelope(s) addressed to the person(s) on the attached service list, and caused those envelopes to be delivered to an ovemight delivery camer, with delivery fees provided for, for next-business-day delivery to whom it is to be served (State) I declare imder penalty of perjury imder the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is tme and correct. Executed on June 28,2011 at Los Angeles, California

II ''

[ 1 '' [ 1 ''

II ''

PROOF OF SERVICE

1 2

SOKPHY TIN V PANDA EXPRESS INC, ETAL Sacramento Superior Court Case No.- 34-2010-00090959 SERVICE LIST

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
AKENI FOX LLP
ATTORNEYS A T L A W Los ANCEIHS

Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bianca N. Smith, Esq. BOHM LAW GROUP 4600 Northgate Blvd Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95834 PHONE: 916-927-5574 FAX: 916-927-2046

PROOF OF SERVICE