Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV36344, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36344    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 68

Giavanna Papasavvas vs. 1016 Industries, Inc., et al., 22STCV36344

Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Stay Complaint

Moving Parties: Defendants 1016 Industries, Inc., and Peter Northrop

Responding Party: Plaintiff Giavanna Papasavvas

BACKGROUND

            Moving Parties’ Position

            Plaintiff’s complaint alleges several causes of action related to the actions of Peter Northrop (Defendant Northrop) while she was employed by his company, 1016 Industries, Inc. (Defendant 1016), and he was her supervisor. Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually harassed by Defendant Northrop and faced sex discrimination; that she was retaliated against in violation of FEHA and the Cal. Labor Code; that Defendant 1016 failed to prevent the sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; and that she was wrongfully terminated. In her complaint, she alleges that these events took place while Plaintiff was performing work for Defendants in and around Los Angeles County, that Defendant Northrop is a resident of Los Angeles County, and that Defendant 1016 does business throughout California, including in Los Angeles County.

            As part of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant 1016, she had signed a lease agreement for a vehicle with a forum selection clause designating Miami-Dade County in Florida as the appropriate forum for actions under that agreement. (Motion, Northrop Decl., Ex. A.) Defendants’ motion is premised on the suggestion that this forum selection clause in a vehicle lease agreement applies to Plaintiff’s claims related to sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination, so Plaintiff’s California complaint should be dismissed.

            Defendants request that if the Court does not grant the motion to dismiss, then the Court should stay this action pending Plaintiff and Defendants’ case in Florida based on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC). In her SAC in the Florida case, Plaintiff and her parents, who signed the agreement as her guarantors, have alleged causes of action related to the vehicle lease agreement. (Motion, Northrop Decl., Ex. D.) None of the causes of action relate to Plaintiff’s sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims, though Defendants’ request for a stay is based on the premise that there might be overlapping factual and evidentiary issues as to the current action.

            Plaintiff’s Opposition

            Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the agreement that contains the forum selection clause is only for disputes related to the vehicle lease and would not have an impact on Plaintiff’s sexual harassment, etc., claims. 

            Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion for a stay on the basis that the parties between the two suits are not identical. Plaintiff’s parents and the vehicle lessor, Anthracite Leasing, are parties to the Vehicle Lease Lawsuit in Florida. Further, Plaintiff argues that staying the sexual harassment, etc., lawsuit would be prejudicial to Plaintiff because the Vehicle Lawsuit may go on for a long time and the availability and memory of witnesses could be affected if it has to be stayed for long period of time.

            Defendants’ Reply

            Defendants primarily reiterate their claims from their initial motion and claim that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by staying the action.

ANALYSIS

            Dismissal

            As Plaintiff correctly points out in her opposition, the forum selection clause upon which Defendants based their motion to dismiss only applies to disputes related to the vehicle lease agreement. It would not apply to Plaintiff’s sexual harassment, etc., claims.

            Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

            Stay

            While Plaintiff’s Florida Vehicle Lease Lawsuit and Plaintiff’s California Sexual Harassment Lawsuit may have some basic facts in common related to Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant 1016 and the actions of Defendant Northrop, there would not be enough of a significant overlap between the two to justify a stay. Additionally, Plaintiff would be prejudiced if there was a significant delay in the Florida litigation.

            Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for a stay is DENIED.

ORDER

1.     Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Stay the Action, is DENIED.