Widdess

Widdess v. Jemico CA1/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 2025A170413California2,433 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

Jemico does business as Renewal by Anderson of San Francisco, a window and door replacement provider. Widdess worked for Jemico as a

1 “Design Consultant” or sales representative from July 2018 until December 2020. At the beginning of his employment, he executed an arbitration agreement, which Jemico placed in his personnel file soon after. In June of 2023, Widdess filed this action against Jemico for whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and failure to pay wages. He alleged he was terminated for complaining about Jemico’s practices related to sales commissions. On August 4, 2023, Jemico filed its answer generally denying Widdess’s allegations and asserting several affirmative defenses. The answer did not mention an arbitration agreement. On the same day, Jemico served Widdess with two sets of form interrogatories, 42 requests for production of documents, and a deposition notice setting Widdess’s deposition for the following month. Widdess served Jemico with discovery requests several days later. During the afternoon of September 5, 2023, Jemico’s counsel sent an email to Widdess’s counsel “to request a mutual 30-day…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.