Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV19629, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV19629 Hearing Date: December 10, 2024 Dept: 14
Case Background
Plaintiffs were dietitians at the UCLA Medical Center.
They complain that they were driven into retirement by a new supervisor, who
wanted to replace them with younger employees.
On August 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) FEHA Discrimination, (2) FEHA Harassment, (3)
FEHA Retaliation, (4) Failure to Prevent, (5) CFRA Violation, (6) Violation of
Sick Leave and Kin Care Law, and (7) Violation of Labor Code § 1102.51 against
Defendants The Regents of the University of California (“Regents”), Angel Maree
Jones (“Jones”), and DOES 1-10. Only the second and seventh causes of action
are asserted against Defendant Jones.
On October 2, 2024, the Court denied Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment.
On October 31, 2024, Defendants filed this motion for
reconsideration.
On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
On November 26, 2024, Defendants filed a reply.
Instant Pleading
Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court’s
October 2, 2024 order denying summary judgment.
Decision
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Court will allow Defendants to file a new motion
for summary judgment.
Trial in this matter is continued to May 5, 2025. Final
Status Conference is continued to April 24, 2025.
Defendants are
ordered to file their new motion for summary judgment by January 10, 2025. The motion will be heard on April 3, 2024. The
opposition and reply filing schedule shall conform with Code Civ. Proc.,
section 437c(b).
Discussion
Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court’s
October 2, 2024 order denying summary judgment.
Code Civ. Proc.,
section 1008 states:
(a)
When
an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and
refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms,
any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the
party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different
facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that
made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior
order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what
application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions
were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed
to be shown.
A motion
for reconsideration must be based on “new or different facts, circumstances or
law.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1499.)
Motions for reconsideration are restricted to circumstances where a party
offers the Court some fact or circumstance not previously considered, and some
valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Id.) Although a
statutory motion for reconsideration requires that the motion be made 10 days
from the date the order at issue is served, the Court has discretion to
reconsider an order on its own motion pursuant to its “constitutionally derived
authority.” (Le Francois v. Goel¿(2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094,
1096.)
Every court has the power to
amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and
justice. (Code Civ. Proc., section 128(a)(8).
Here, Defendants’ motion was not timely because it was
filed more than 10 days after entry of the order denying summary judgment.
Defendants request that the Court reconsider the denial on its own motion or
using its inherent authority.
Defendants request the opportunity to cure the
deficiencies identified by the Court in their separate statement. Defendants
allege that the new separate statement would be significantly shorter, refer to
overlapping facts by reference, limit each assertion to a single fact, and provide
page numbers for all evidence citations. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs would
not be prejudiced by this request because trial was continued. Defendants
support their motion with citations to cases where other trial courts abused
their discretion by granting motions for summary judgment without giving the
parties opposing summary judgment the opportunity to cure their defective
separate statements. (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178
Cal.App.4th 243, 263; Collins v. Hertz Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 64,
74, Sec. Pac. Nat. Bank v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 89, 91.)
Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that the cases
cited by Defendants only concern situations where trial courts granted summary
judgment without giving a party opposing the motion the opportunity to cure
procedural defects.
The Court declines to reconsider its earlier order
denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This motion was not timely
made. Additionally, the cases cited by Defendants are not new and were
available to the Court when it made its order denying summary judgment.
However, the Court, in its discretion, will allow Defendants to file a new
motion for summary judgment to allow Defendants an opportunity to file a proper
separate statement. Requiring Defendants to file a new motion, rather than
reconsidering the previous one, will allow Plaintiffs time to consider the new motion
and file a substantive opposition to the new separate statement.
The Court notes that it is now less than 105 days from
trial, meaning it would be impossible to set a new motion for summary judgment and
meet the notice requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc., section 437c. Thus,
trial in this matter is continued to accommodate the motion.
Conclusion
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Court will allow Defendants to file a new motion
for summary judgment.
Discovery and other trial related deadlines are not
extended by this continuance and remain based on the February 10, 2025 trial
date.
Defendants are ordered to file their new motion for
summary judgment by January 10, 2025. The
motion will be heard on April 3, 2024. The opposition and reply filing schedule
shall conform with Code Civ. Proc., section 437c(b).