Greg Gordon vs. Lyft, Inc. et. al.

4 9:00 13 25CV471833 Greg Gordon vs. Lyft, Inc. et. al. Defendant moves this Court to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.

Plaintiff created a Lyft user account and agreed to arbitration should a dispute or claim arise.

Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion, Defendant’s motion i s GRANTED.

Calendar Line 3

Case Name: Lesniak v. County of Santa Clara, et al. Case No.: 24CV446754

On September 29, 2025, the Court [Hon. Pennypacker] filed an order sustaining defendants Daniel Little (“Little”), Damion Wright (“Wright”) and Yazmina Letona’s (“Letona”) (collectively, “individual defendants”) demurrer to plaintiff Alex Lesniak’s (“Plaintiff”) first amended complaint (“FAC”) without leave to amend as to the first cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.

The Court also sustained defendant County of Santa Clara’s (“County”) demurrer to the first cause of action with leave to amend and Little, Wright, Letona and County’s (collectively, “Defendants”) demurrer to the second cause of action with leave to amend.

As to County’s demurrer to the first cause of action, the Court stated that “the applicable three-year statute of limitations bars action against Defendants’ conduct prior to August 29, 2021,” noting that “[d]espite the length and detail in some aspects of Plaintiff’s allegations, there are insufficient facts alleged in the FAC to reasonably infer Defendants’ conduct prior to August 29, 2021 was similar or connected to the alleged unlawful actions thereafter.” (September 29, 2025 order sustaining Defs.’ demurrer to the FAC, pp.6-8.)

The Court also stated that “Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendants’ alleged retaliatory actions from July to September 2022 not only lack factual specificity as to what laws/rules/regulations were violated, but also facts supporting her reasonable belief that the undefined laws/rules/regulations were violated.” (Id. at p.8.)