Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 20SMCV00612, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00612    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 200

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 200

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Sapient Investigations, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff John Doe

            The Court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with Defendant Sapient Investigations, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication. 

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of a background check report prepared by Defendant Sapient Investigations, Inc. which Plaintiff John Doe contends was erroneous and allegedly cost him a job.  

            In 2019, Plaintiff was applying for a position as chief commercial officer at Accuray.  Separate Statement of Facts (SSOF) Nos. 4-5.  Plaintiff submitted a resume that omitted reference to a prior employment at OtisMed.  SSOF No. 6.  The omission was important because the Department of Justice (DOJ) had brought a fraud action against OtisMed, and the OtisMed CEO was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison.  SSOF Nos. 9, 11.  

Accuray’s board members, Richard Pettingill and Louis Lavigne, found out about the omission and considered it to be significant, as though Plaintiff was trying to hide it.  SSOF No. 7, 9-13.  Pettingill and Lavigne were also concerned about Plaintiff’s personality -- Plaintiff had an aggressive, confrontational style that might not fit in well with Accuray’s executives and investors.  SSOF Nos. 8, 15. 

            Accuray hired Defendant to perform a background investigation on Plaintiff.  Accuracy asked Sapient to focus on Plaintiff’s involvement with OtisMed.  SSOF No. 20.  Sapient then produced a background investigation report on Plaintiff, identifying him as “Employee #2” in the DOJ’s complaint against OtisMed.  SSOF No. 21.  The report stated that according to prosecutors, Employee #2 carried out the OtisMed CEO’s instructions to ship out hundreds of OtisKnee devices in contravention of an FDA warning that distribution of the product would be illegal.  Ex. F to Cogan Decl., p. 20.     

            Accuray did not hire Plaintiff.  SSOF 33.  Plaintiff alleges he was not hired because of Defendant’s background report.  Compl. ¶8.  Plaintiff has filed claims under both the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRA) and the Fair Credit and Reporting Act (FCRA).  Plaintiff has alleged both negligent and willful violations of the Act.  Compl. ¶¶36-37, 41-42, 44-47, 50-51, 54-55.  Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory penalties and punitive damages.    

            This hearing is on Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of one issue common to all five claims: whether Plaintiff’s actual damages were as a result of Defendant’s background report.  Defendant argues the undisputed evidence shows Accuray did not hire Plaintiff because of factors independent of its background report, and therefore Plaintiff cannot establish Defendant caused his actual damages.  

DISCUSSION

            The crux of Defendant’s motion is that causation is an element of each of Plaintiff’s claims for actual damages, and Plaintiff cannot show causation as a matter of law because an Accuray board member testified the decision not to hire Plaintiff was not based on Defendant’s report.  Defendant’s motion seeks summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claim for actual damages, separate from any other type of damage Plaintiff seeks, including Plaintiff’s claim for statutory penalties and punitive damages.  Defendant’s motion is improper under CCP§ 437c(f)(1).  

            CCP§ 437c(f)(1) provides in relevant part, “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, as to one or more claims for damages … if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit [or] that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code.”  “[S]ummary adjudication of a claim for damages applies only to punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294, not damages in general.” (Ahn v. Kun, 2021 Cal. Super. LEXIS 13041, *2; see also Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 242 (Section 437c(f)(1) “limited summary adjudication motions to a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for punitive damages, or an issue of duty”).)  

            The rationale for the rule is that “it is a waste of court time to attempt to resolve issues if the resolution of those issues will not result in summary adjudication of a cause of action or affirmative defense.  Since the cause of action must still be tried, much of the same evidence will be reconsidered by the court at the time of trial.” (Paramount Petroleum, 227 Cal.App.4th at 242 (citing Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2594 (1989–1990 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 7, 1990, pp. 2–3).)  The clear purpose of this provision is to “stop the practice of adjudication of facts or adjudication of issues that do not completely dispose of a cause of action or a defense.” (Id., Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1853.)  Here, Defendant’s motion would not completely dispose of a cause of action and is not directed to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.  Accordingly, a grant of the motion would still require a trial on other claims of damages asserted by Plaintiff, and the motion is improper under CCP§ 437c(f)(1).

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 25, 2022                               ______________________________

                                                                                    Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court