Maria Rodriguez sues Target, manager Amanda Oquendo/OQuendo in federal labor suit

Target filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 6, 2026, converting a San Bernardino County case, CIVSB2535509, into Rodriguez v. TARGET CORPORATION et al, Case No. 2:26-cv-02420. The federal docket entry records a removal filing at 1:50 PM and lists the nature of suit as 790, Labor - Other Labor Litigation, with cause code 28:1441 for Notice of Removal; the filing carried a $405 fee and receipt number ACACDC-41673851.

The plaintiff named in commercial case listings is Maria Rodriguez, while the defendants are recorded as TARGET CORPORATION and a manager identified variously as Amanda Oquendo and Amanda OQuendo, with the federal docket also listing DOES 1-100, inclusive. The Law service entry shows defendants as "Target Corporation, Amanda Oquendo + 1," a shorthand that appears to correspond to the unnamed DOES 1-100 notation on the Central District docket; the capitalization discrepancy for Amanda Oquendo appears in source records and remains unconfirmed in the filings.

Target’s federal filing was lodged by counsel associated with the Kullman Firm, with attorney Heather D. Hearne added to the TARGET CORPORATION party record on the docket. Pacermonitor entries include a Corporate Disclosure Statement filed at 2:04 PM that identifies none as a corporate parent, and an additional exhibit entry timestamped 3:20 PM labeled "EXHIBIT Filed filed by Defendant TARGET CORPORATION. as to Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,1 ." The Notice of Removal entry lists attachments: a Declaration of Heather D. Hearne and Exhibits 1 through 4, but the docket excerpts provided do not reveal the contents of those exhibits.

Major substantive gaps remain in the publicly captured docket excerpts: the underlying state-court complaint from San Bernardino Superior Court is not reproduced in the federal entries supplied here, no plaintiff-side counsel is listed in the extracts, there is no indication of an assigned judge or magistrate on the Central District docket, and the specific causes of action or relief sought by Maria Rodriguez are not shown. The removal code, 28:1441, signals Target asserted a federal jurisdictional basis in moving the matter from state to federal court, but the exact legal or factual grounds for that jurisdiction are not visible in the attached docket summaries.

For employees and observers wanting the full allegations and jurisdictional arguments, the next concrete step is to obtain the Notice of Removal and the attached Declaration of Heather D. Hearne and Exhibits 1–4 from the Central District of California docket for case No. 2:26-cv-02420 and to review the San Bernardino Superior Court file CIVSB2535509 for the original complaint. Watch the Central District docket for an answer, a motion to remand, or a scheduling order that will include an assigned judge and case deadlines.

The entry of DOES 1-100 alongside a named store manager and a corporate defendant signals a potentially broad initial pleading strategy, but without the complaint the scope and remedies sought remain unknown; the court record will determine whether the case proceeds as individual claims or expands into additional parties or collective claims.