Anna Gilles vs. Foothill Sierra Pest Control

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 May 6, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

40 CV67781 Anna Gilles vs. Foothill Sierra Pest Control 10/28/2025

Anna Gilles Attorney: Yet Not Entered

Foothill Sierra Pest Control Attorney: Scott Ward

Trevor Cuthill Attorney: Scott Ward Case Management Conference Further - OSC Sanction Def. Counsel? OSC Hearing - Sanctions 10/28/2025 Complaint File Tracking 11/14/2025 High Density

This is the continued hearing in a wrongful termination case involving a myriad of claims made by the plaintiff against her employer and what appears to be a co-worker. It is generally alleged that the co-worker subjected plaintiff to an unwanted, and certainly weird, interaction involving a banana. After reporting the incident to management, plaintiff was terminated.

An earlier CMC was aborted due to defense counsel’s absence – prompting counsel for plaintiff to request sanctions. The salient history is as follows: o On 10/31/2025, defendant received a service package, which included date of the initial CMC on the TUO-CV-100; o On 01/27/2026, defense counsel filed and served a CMC statement indicating an intention to appear in person at the initial CMC; o On 02/04/2026, defense counsel received via email a CMC statement from plaintiff’s counsel, indicating his intention to appear at the initial CMC by telephone; o Defense counsel did not appear at the initial CMC.

Counsel states in his declaration that his office inadvertently removed the hearing from the office calendar, but does not say when that occurred or what other case was in fact removed from calendar, if that was in this courthouse, or any other information. The opposing declaration is too vague to find that the absence was anything but ordinary attorney error – which CCP §473(b) does not provide safe passage for. o In terms of the amount, counsel’s time estimate devoted to the initial hearing (1.6 hrs) is probably accurate but the case notes posted online in advance of that hearing clearly indicated that the CMC was likely to be continued anyway.

Thus, there was no need to “prepare” anything of substance for the hearing. Thirty minutes was more than enough brain power. As for the fee, while plaintiff’s counsel no doubt commands $900/hr down on South Fig, up here in the sticks he going rate for employment discrimination is $450/hr (max). Defense counsel shall immediately cut a check to plaintiff’s counsel for $225.00 pursuant to CRC 2.30 and 3.722(c).