Terbeek

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges in the TAC that she was employed by Panda as a general manager

for an unspecified period of time, and terminated on April 24, 2009. As best we can

discern from the TAC, plaintiff was purportedly terminated for failure to comply with

Panda policies and procedures relating to banking and the handling of daily deposits from

restaurants. She contends that her termination was in fact the product of invidious

discrimination, as well as retaliation for complaints to her supervisors about various

violations of law and company policy, and retaliation for her decision, in relation to a

worker’s compensation dispute between Panda and another employee, to take the side of

the employee.

Plaintiff’s original complaint, filed in Riverside County Superior Court on

December 8, 2011, alleged employment related claims under state law. Her first

amended complaint added allegations that Panda had violated federal employment law.

The case was removed by Panda to federal court, but was remanded after Panda

successfully moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, on the basis that no federal

law claims remained in her second amended…