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.