Ramos v. Superior Court, No. A153390 (D1d1 Nov. 2, 2018)
The Court of Appeal holds that regardless of whether a non-equity income partner in a law firm is an employee or a partner for employment purposes, the balance of power in the relationship is employee-ish enough that the unconscionability rules that apply to FEHA and Tameny claims apply to whether she can be required to arbitrate the FEHA gender discrimination case she filed against the firm. Those weren’t followed here. So nobody is going to arbitration.
Writ granted.
Showing posts with label ramos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ramos. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Friday, February 21, 2014
Apparently, CT Corp. Wasn't Home ...
Ramos v. Homeward Residential, Inc., D063740 (D4d1 Feb. 20, 2014)
Other than writs about discovery, nothing warms the cockles of the heart of a civil procedure blogger more than a published decision about service of process. Here, the court of appeal holds that a San Diego trial court properly set aside a default judgment because the defendant was never properly served with process though substituted service under Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20 and the plaintiff’s efforts did not constitute substantial compliance with the service statutes.
Other than writs about discovery, nothing warms the cockles of the heart of a civil procedure blogger more than a published decision about service of process. Here, the court of appeal holds that a San Diego trial court properly set aside a default judgment because the defendant was never properly served with process though substituted service under Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20 and the plaintiff’s efforts did not constitute substantial compliance with the service statutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)