Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00479/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00479-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed June 17, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MARITZA DUARTE, individually and on 

behalf of others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MZR, INC. dba HOPKINS MANOR and 

GORDON MANOR; ZENAIDA MALLARI, 

incorrectly sued as ZENAIDA MALLIARI; 

and DOES 1–10, 

 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C09-00479 JW (HRL) 

ORDER DENYING (1) PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND FOR A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND (2) 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS 

[Re: Docket Nos. 47, 49, 52, 53, 54 & 56] 

Plaintiff Maritza Duarte (“Duarte”) brought this action against defendants MZR, Inc. 

(“MZR”) and individual Zenaida Malliari (“Malliari”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for wage-andhour violations under the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

Six discovery motions were heard by the Court on June 15, 2010: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel the production documents (Docket No. 47); (2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel further 

responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests (Docket No. 49); (3) Plaintiff’s motion for a protective 

order (Docket No. 52); (4) Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Malliari (Docket No. 54); 

(5) Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of MZR’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) 

deponent; and (6) Defendants’ motion to compel verified responses to Defendants’ requests for 

admissions, document requests, and interrogatories and for sanctions (Docket No. 53). 

Case 5:09-cv-00479-JW Document 74 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

Based on the moving papers and the parties’ statements at the June 15 hearing, the Court 

sees that both Duarte and Defendants have already received their requested relief and laments their 

failure to withdraw motions in advance of the hearing.1 Accordingly, the Court denies all motions 

as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 17, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

 At the June 15 hearing, Duarte initially argued that Defendants’ responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 

4, 5, and 16 were insufficient. (See Docket No. 49.) The Court suggested that the answers were 

fully responsive to the questions posed. Duarte’s counsel retorted that the answers were 

“unbelievable” and that the Court should require Defendants to offer truthful answers. Duarte’s 

counsel misunderstands the Court’s role here. 

Case 5:09-cv-00479-JW Document 74 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

C09-00479 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Adam Wang adamqwang@gmail.com, alpedersen@gmail.com, 

rosilenda@gmail.com 

Adam Lee Pedersen alpedersen@gmail.com 

John Gregory Downing john@downinglaw.com 

Luan Thien Le ledowningllp@aol.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:09-cv-00479-JW Document 74 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 3