Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV34690, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34690    Hearing Date: June 29, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. 

Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiff alleges that she suffered an injury at work and was placed on leave by her physician. When she provided work restrictions enabling her to return to work, Defendants terminated her employment without ever engaging in the interactive process.

Defendant Kadima Hebrew Academy moves to strike portions of the Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Kadima Hebrew Academy motion to strike portions of the Complaint is DENIED in its entirety.

            Defendant is ordered to answer the Complaint within 10 days.

ANALYSIS

Demurrer

Meet and Confer

            The Declaration of Martin S. Gattas reflects that Defendant’s counsel satisfied the meet and confer requirement set forth in Civ. Proc. Code, § 340.41.

Discussion

            Defendant moves to strike the punitive damage allegations at ¶¶ 39, 54, 69, 79, 91, 102, 109 and the Prayer for Relief 4 on Page 23:28-24:2.

            The motion to strike is DENIED in its entirety. The Complaint sufficiently pleads that Defendant acted with malice, as that term is defined in Civil Code, § 3294(c)(1) to include: “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”

            A jury could find that Defendant acted with “malice” in terminating Plaintiff’s employment without attempting to engage in the interactive process after she was cleared to return to work with restrictions after a nearly 2-year medical leave. (Complaint ¶¶ 19 – 20.) A jury could find that Defendant engaged in despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under FEHA. " 'Despicable conduct' is conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people." (Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 331.)

            Defendant is ordered to answer the Complaint within 10 days.