BP Holdings RHO LLC vs. Duan

6. 2026-1558154 The Court believes it is necessary to hear live testimony to determine BP Holdings whether Defendants can show what alimony, if any, may have been RHO LLC vs. expected. In its present paper form, a critical issue remains Duan underdeveloped and factual. The Court’s ruling on this matter, particularly on the issue of probability of prevailing, turns on Defendants’ ability to explain and substantiate the alimony waiver, mindful as the Court is of its obligation to adequately weigh whether reasonably equivalent value existed. Further, counsel may also consider the possibility of an undertaking under CCP 405.33. The Court will hear from counsel on these points before issuing its tentative ruling.

7. 2024-1434573 Defendant City of Irvine’s motion for summary Frericks vs. judgment/adjudication on Plaintiff Mary Ann Frericks complaint is City of Irvine denied.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Facts This cases presents a single cause of action for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code §1102.5.

Plaintiff alleges she was working for the City of Irvine as a Community Services Senior Leader Jewelry Tech Extended Part- Time.

Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated in retaliation for raise- request concerns about and reporting on two separate issues. First, she reported numerous safety and OSHA issues regarding equipment and practices, as well as an instructor teaching while injured and thus unable to safely teach beginning casting. [Complaint, ¶¶ 8-12.]

As a result of this latter issue, Plaintiff ended up taking on substantial duties beyond the scope of her job to overhaul the IFAC jewelry program, including retraining Open Studio participants, and formally teaching two classes: Jewelry Fabrication from September 6-October 25, 2023; and Lost Wax Casting from September 12- October 31, 2023. [Complaint, ¶ 13.]

Believing that she and other Jewelry Techs who were required to teach courses were essentially misclassified and thus underpaid – violations of the City’s Personnel Rules-- Plaintiff reported this and advocated for raises. [Complaint, ¶¶ 15-24.]

There is no dispute about Plaintiff’s employment or that she made the above reports. [Response to Separate Statement (ROA # 41), nos. 3-5, 7, 11-28.]