Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 21STCV20102, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20102    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: 55

Background

In this FEHA case, Riad Roy Itani (“Plaintiff”) alleges claims against the County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) for (1) discrimination on the basis of race/national origin; (2) discrimination on the basis of age; (3) retaliation; and (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

On 9/18/24, Defendant filed an amended notice of motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to the Complaint. On 11/25/24, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the MSJ hearing because, inter alia , Plaintiff’s counsel had health issues that prevented her from opposing the MSJ. The Court signed an order continuing the hearing on the MSJ from 12/2/24 to 6/11/25.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the MSJ or a separate statement. Nor did Plaintiff file any request to continue the MSJ hearing. Defense counsel filed a declaration on 6/4/25, explaining that on 5/28/25, the opposition deadline, Plaintiff’s counsel had requested from Defendant a further continuance of the MSJ hearing. Grigg Decl., ¶ 5. Defendant declined to stipulate to a continuance. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant that she would file an ex parte application to continue the MSJ but she never filed any such application. Id., ¶ 8. Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition on 6/4/25.

Legal Standard

A party is entitled to summary judgment if there is no triable issue of material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. § 437c, subd. (c). A moving “defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2). Once the defendant has satisfied that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to “show, by responsive separate statement and admissible evidence, that triable issues of fact exist.” Ostyan v. Serrano Reconveyance Co. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418, disapproved on other grounds by Black Sky Cap., LLC v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156, 165; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).

Analysis

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he a civil engineer who works in the Public Works department for Defendant. Compl. ¶ 1. He alleges that he suffered discrimination and retaliation (including not getting promoted) because of his age and because he is Lebanese/Muslim. Complaint, ¶¶ 4-6. 9-10, 12-16.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot establish a triable issue of material fact on his discrimination claims based on age and national origin. Defendant contends that no evidence exists that Defendant subjected Plaintiff to discrimination because of his national origin and/or age, and thus Plaintiff fails to even establish a prima facie case. Defendant goes on to argue, with supporting evidence, that even if Plaintiff could establish a prima facie case, Defendant had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting Plaintiff. Mot., 10-11; see also Sep. Stmt. of Undisputed Mat. Facts (SSUMF) Nos.  1-32. Defendant also provides evidence that undermines Plaintiff’s speculation that he did not get a promotion due to discrimination. Mot. 11-15; SSMUF Nos. 1-94.

Defendant further argues that Plaintiff fails to establish a retaliation claim because no evidence exists regarding any protected activity that Plaintiff engaged in or any adverse employment action taken against him, let alone any link between the two. Defendant also contends that allegations regarding promotional exams prior to 2018 are time barred. Finally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s failure to prevent claim necessarily fails because he cannot establish a predicate case of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.

The Court has reviewed the moving papers and concluded the motion is not deficient on its face. Plaintiff, by not filing an opposition or separate statement, has conceded that the motion should be granted. Plaintiff already received a lengthy continuance of the MSJ date and still failed to submit an opposition addressing Defendant’s arguments and evidence or the required separate statement. Under these circumstances, the Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion. Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. (2025) 109 Cal. App. 5th 478, 485 (affirming order granting defendant’s summary judgment motion where plaintiff failed to file an opposition or separate statement).

Conclusion

The Court grants the unopposed motion.