Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: BC706835, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC706835    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Jose Luis Nazar’s and Land of the Free, L.P.’s, motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff Michele Fox Gott’s second amended complaint and motion in the alternative for summary adjudication is denied.

          Defendants Jose Luis Nazar (“Nazar”) and Land of the Free, L.P. (“LF”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move for summary judgment of Plaintiff Michele Fox Gott’s (“Fox”) (“Plaintiff”) second amended complaint (“SAC”) on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 5; C.C.P. §437c.)  Defendants move in the alternative for summary adjudication of each of the causes of action in Plaintiff’s SAC on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th causes of action.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 5; C.C.P. §437c.)

Procedural Background

On May 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed her initial complaint.  On December 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (“FAC”).  On February 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative SAC alleging fourteen causes of action against Defendants: (1) reasonable value for services performed; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) quantum meruit; (4) breach of implied contract; (5) breach of oral contract; (6) failure to pay state minimum wage in violation of Labor Code §§1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197; (7) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Labor Code §§510, 1194; (8) failure to pay timely earned wages upon separation of employment in violation of Labor Code §§201, 202, 203, 227.3, 218.5, 218.6; (9) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code §226; (10) failure to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code §226.7; (11) failure to provide rest periods in violation of Labor Code §226.7; (12) liquidated damages for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Code §§1194, 1194.2; (13) failure to reimburse expenditures incurred on behalf of employer in violation of Labor Code §2802; and (14) unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions Code §§17200 et seq.  (See SAC.) 

On February 9, 2023, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment and in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication.  On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendants’ motion.  As of the date of this hearing, Defendants have not filed a reply.

Plaintiffs object to consideration of Defendants’ motion as untimely.  The original hearing date for this motion was April 20, 2023. Per C.C.P. §437c(a)(2), Defendants were to file their motion on February 2, 2023, 77 days prior to the hearing date.  Defendants’ motion is untimely.  (McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 116 [determining C.C.P. §437c(a) gives the court power to shorten time on other summary judgment time requirements, but not on the 75-day notice of hearing].)  Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.

          Conclusion

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion in the alternative for summary adjudication is denied.

Dated:  May _____, 2023

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court