Baker v. Prudential Overall Supply
Katie Baker appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of respondent Prudential Overall Supply, Inc. (Prudential) on her first amended complaint for wrongful termination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473c.)[1] Appellant asserts that the judgment should be set aside based on the inexcusable neglect of her trial attorney. (§ 473, subd. (b).) We affirm.
Facts
Appellant sued Prudential for wrongful termination, breach of contract, negligence, and unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) after she was terminated as a sales representative in 2009. The first amended complaint alleges that appellant was hired in 2008 and received good job reviews until her manager, Chuck Bradley, "forged" a document extending her probation period. Appellant was terminated on May 11, 2009, allegedly without cause and in violation of the employment agreement.
Prudential filed a summary judgment motion based on requests for admissions (RFAs) that were deemed admitted when appellant failed to respond to discovery. Appellant's trial attorney, Michael Fox, blamed the discovery default on a contract attorney who failed to appear at a discovery hearing. Appellant signed verified RFA responses that were lodged with the trial court.
The trial court, over Prudential's objection, considered the RFA responses. The court also reviewed the employment agreement ("Summary of Employment Offer") which is attached to the First Amended Complaint, finding that it is an at-will employment contract. Based on the verified RFA responses, the trial court ruled there were no triable material facts that Prudential breached the employment agreement or that appellant was wrongfully terminated.
Comments on Baker v. Prudential Overall Supply