Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV02017, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV02017 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 Dept: 68
Marcus
Hudson, et al. vs. Browning-Ferris Industries of CA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 21STCV02017
Motion for
Order re Clarification of Previous Court Ruling
Moving
Parties – Plaintiffs Marcus Hudson and Melvin Lacey
Opposing
Party – Defendant Peter Pouwels
Background
On December 16, 2022, Defendants
Browning-Ferris Industries of CA, Inc., Republic Services, Inc., and
Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC, (Corporate Defendants) filed a motion for
summary judgment. On December 19, 2022, Defendant Peter Pouwels (Pouwels) filed
a document that was titled “Joinder to Motion for Summary
Judgment/Adjudication”, in which Pouwels indicated that he wished to join
Corporate Defendants’ MSJ as to the issues of the First Cause of Action for
sexual and disability harassment; Second Cause of Action for sexual assault
and/or battery; and Eighth Cause of Action for negligent infliction of
emotional distress. On December 22, 2022, Corporate Defendants filed an Amended
Motion for Summary Judgment. Pouwels did not join in the amended motion.
On March 7, 2023, this Court granted
summary adjudication as to the causes of action for Battery and Negligent
Infliction of Emotional Distress and issue of Punitive Damages. Plaintiffs
filed this motion for clarification in order to clarify that this ruling
applies only to the Corporate Defendants and not to Pouwels. Plaintiffs argue
that the ruling only applies to Corporate Defendants because Pouwels did not
properly join the motion for summary judgment, nor did he file an amended joinder
to join in the amended motion for summary judgment.
In his opposition, Pouwels argues
that his joinder was proper. He did not address the fact that he did not file
an updated or amended joinder after Corporate Defendants filed their amended
motion for summary judgment. He also attempts to argue that Plaintiffs waived
their objection to his joinder by not objecting to it prior to now.
Plaintiffs’ argue in their reply
that they did not waive their objection because there was no effective motion
or action by Pouwels to object to. They also argue that on the merits, summary
adjudication cannot be granted to Pouwels because when this Court granted
summary adjudication as to the issues of Battery and Negligent Infliction of
Emotion Distress, it did so based on the Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity
preemption as to the Corporate Defendants, not to Pouwels as an individual.
Analysis
When this Court granted summary
adjudication, it did so with the intent that it would apply only to the
Corporate Defendants, not to Pouwels as an individual defendant. The Court
granted the motion for summary adjudication based on the Workers’ Compensation
Exclusivity preemption, which would not apply to Pouwels as an individual.
Additionally, Pouwels never joined
in the amended motion, so whether he properly joined the original motion does
not matter.
Order
1. The
March 7, 2023 motion related solely to the Corporate Defendants.
2. The
Court’s March 7, 2023, order on summary adjudication applied only to the
Corporate Defendants, not to Defendant Peter Pouwels.
3. Nothing
herein shall be construed as addressing the claimed liability (or lack of liability)
of Defendant Peter Pouwels.