Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 11-08-2023

Case Style:

Leonardo Garcia v. Hertz Local Edition Corp., et al.

Case Number: 23:23-CV-1270

Judge: Rogert T. Benitez

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best San Diego Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Olga Savage

Description: San Diego, California civil litigation lawyer represented the Plaintiff seeking various state court remedies.

This case was filed in the San Diego Superior of California, 37-02023-00027206-CU-WTC-NC, and was removed to federal court by the Defendants.

Plaintiff began working for Defendant Hertz Local Edition Corporation (“Defendant” or “Hertz”) in January 2016. By 2018, Plaintiff was promoted to District Manager and was responsible for two locations. Plaintiff alleged he received bonuses and performed his job duties satisfactorily throughout his employment.

Plaintiff took leave for vacation between August 21st and September 3rd of 2020. Two days after Plaintiff returned from vacation, a co-worker tested positive for Covid-19 and the location was closed for a week. Plaintiff went into self-quarantine for two weeks, which was scheduled to end September 18, 2020. On September 14th, Plaintiff requested an additional two weeks of leave due to his wife's pregnancy. Id. In this same email, Plaintiff informed Defendant Hertz his intention to take paternity leave.

Defendant Hertz initially responded by indicating Plaintiff did not have sufficient vacation hours to cover the additional leave. Plaintiff then sent documents to Human Resources (“HR”) showing he did have vacation hours remaining. Id. Plaintiff alleges HR admitted they were mistaken in their initial calculation of his vacation hours. Id. The next day, HR requested an in-person meeting with Plaintiff. Id.

Plaintiff subsequently met with an HR representative and his general manager, Defendant Melissa Linden. Id. ¶ 17. During this meeting, Plaintiff was informed he was being terminated for failure to follow the company's Covid-19 protocols. Id. ¶ 17. When Plaintiff asked which policies he had violated, none were identified. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff was further informed the alleged violation occurred before his August vacation. Id. Plaintiff alleges he followed the company's Covid-19 protocols to the best of his ability, and the reason for his termination was pretextual. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff maintains he was terminated because he asked for additional time to self-quarantine and because he announced his intention to take family leave. Id.

Outcome: 11/08/2023 12 ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion To Remand [ECF No. 4 ] (Certified copy sent to State Court via US Mail Service.). Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/8/2023. (ddf) (Entered: 11/08/2023)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case