Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV11417, Date: 2024-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11417    Hearing Date: December 19, 2024    Dept: 74

Basulto v. Antelope Valley Medical Center, et al.

Defendant Antelope Valley Healthcare District’s Motion for Summary Judgment

BACKGROUND 

            This case arises out of alleged employment discrimination and retaliation. On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.  The FAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Medical Leave Retaliation; (3) Medical Leave Discrimination; (4) Retaliation for Exercising Family Leave; (5) Family Care Leave Discrimination; (6) Kin Care Leave Retaliation; (7) Kin Care Leave Discrimination; (8) Retaliation for Requesting Accommodations for Disabilities; (9) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (10) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate Disabilities; (11) Disability Discrimination; (12) Disability Harassment; (13) Sexual Harassment; (14) Sexual Orientation Harassment; (15) Harassment Based on Ancestry; (16) Retaliation for Opposing Violations of FEHA; (17) Failure to Prevent Harassment; and (18) Whistleblower Retaliation.  

On September 16, 2022, the court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer to the First (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy) and Thirteenth (Sexual Harassment) causes of action. On March 21, 2024, defendant Antelope Valley Health District filed its motion for summary judgment or adjudication of Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action (Second through Twelfth and Fourteenth through Eighteenth Causes of Action.)[1]

DISCUSSION

            The California Rules of Court require that a Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts accompany a motion for summary judgment or adjudication. The Separate Statement must “separately identify: (A) [e]ach cause of action . . . that is the subject of the motion…[T]he separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d).)

            AVHD’s omnibus Separate Statement violates California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350 because the Separate Statement fails to separately identify each cause of action and the specific facts relevant to that cause of action.  Because Plaintiff’s sixteen causes of action have different elements (compare, for example, medical leave retaliation and discrimination (2^nd and 3^rd causes of action) with sexual orientation harassment (14^th) with harassment based on ancestry (15^th) with whistleblower retaliation (18^th)), AVHD’s failure to organize its Separate Statement according to each cause of action improperly shifts to the Court the burden of parsing the purportedly undisputed facts that are material to each particular cause of action. Moreover, the memorandum of points and authorities in AVHD’s motion adds to that burden because the memorandum does not cite particular facts from the Separate Statement that are relevant to a particular cause of action as the memorandum discusses each cause of action. (See Motion pp. 15-27.)

The Court declines to accept the burden AVHD’s Separate Statement imposes.  Failure to provide a proper Separate Statement is sufficient to deny summary adjudication.  (Code Civ. Proc. 437c, subd. (b)(1).)  Accordingly, the Court denies summary adjudication of any cause of action. And, because AVHD does not advance an argument entitling it to summary judgment of the entire complaint, the court likewise denies summary judgment. 

CONCLUSION

            The Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or adjudication.

            Defendant to give notice.