Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV34578, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV34578 Hearing Date: March 10, 2023 Dept: 56
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
Plaintiff, vs. DARIUS TRUGMAN, et al.,
Defendants. |
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION Date:
March 10, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 Non-Jury Trial: April 11, 2023 |
MOVING
PARTIES: Defendants Global 360 Protective Services (“Global”) and Darius
Trugman (“Trugman”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)
RESPONDING
PARTY: Plaintiff
The
Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of an employment
relationship. Plaintiff’s complaint (the
“Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of written agreement; (2) promissory fraud;
(3) promissory estoppel; (4) violation of Labor Code section 2751; (5)
violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (6) wrongful termination; (7)
interference with contractual relations; (8) interference with prospective
business advantage; (9) unfair competition; (10) failure to pay wages; (11)
breach of oral agreement; (12) unpaid overtime; (13) unfair business practices;
(14) waiting time penalties; and (15) violation of Labor Code section 226.
In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: Plaintiff worked
for Moving Defendants for approximately 13 years. (Complaint ¶ 5.) During Plaintiff’s employment, Trugman, who
is the founder and CEO of Global, orally represented to Plaintiff that
Plaintiff would receive half of the profits generated by any new account that
he brought to Moving Defendants.
(Complaint ¶¶ 5-6.) In 2020,
Plaintiff obtained an account with Bowlero (“Bowlero”) for Moving Defendants.
(Complaint ¶ 7.) Plaintiff requested
that Trugman state in writing that Plaintiff would earn 50 percent of the
profits from the Bowlero account.
(Complaint ¶ 8.) Trugman told
Plaintiff that he no longer wanted to proceed with the Bowlero account and that
Plaintiff was free to take the account to another security provider. (Id.)
Plaintiff thereafter associated with another security company to which
he could transition the Bowlero account.
(Complaint ¶ 11.) Despite
Trugman’s representation that Plaintiff could take over the Bowlero account,
Trugman contacted Bowlero without Plaintiff’s knowledge. (See
Complaint ¶ 13.) On August 31, 2021, Plaintiff learned that
Bowlero decided to continue its relationship with Global. (Complaint ¶ 14.)
Moving
Defendants filed a motion for summary adjudication (the “Motion”) to the first
through ninth and eleventh causes of action in the Complaint in addition to the
Complaint’s claim for punitive damages.
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff’s objection to the Declaration of Darius
Trugman (“Trugman Decl.”) is OVERRULED. Moving
Defendants’ objections to the Declaration of David Rodriguez (“Rodriguez
Decl.”) are OVERRULED.
DISCUSSION
The function of a motion for summary judgment
or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party
cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order
of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar
v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) California Code of Civil Procedure
(“CCP”) section 437c, subdivision (c) requires the trial judge to grant
summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably
deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence,
show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Adler
v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)
As to each claim as framed by the complaint,
the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of
proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a
defense. (CCP § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005)
128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts
liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary
judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that
party. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)
Once the defendant has met that burden, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more
material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material
fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive
evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)
Evidence
Global and Bowlero entered into a contract for
Global to provide security services on February 19, 2020 (the “Bowlero
Agreement”). (UMF 1.) The Bowlero Agreement expired on February 18,
2021, but Bowlero continued to use Global’s services when it reopened in March
2021 after its COVID-19 pandemic-related closure without a further signed
agreement. (UMF 8.)
On April 16, 2020, Plaintiff and Trugman
communicated about Plaintiff’s percentage of profits on the Bowlero
account. (See UMFs 3-6.) Plaintiff requested 50 percent of the profits
generated by the Bowlero account, to which Trugman responded that Plaintiff’s share
of the Bowlero profits would be 30 percent.
(UMF 5.) Plaintiff texted Trugman
that he was “cool to take the 30.” (UMF
5; Declaration of Adam Y. Siegel (“Siegel Decl.”), Exhibit 15.) When Bowlero reopened in 2021, Plaintiff
revisited the topic of receiving 50 percent of the profits from the Bowlero
account. (See UMFs 9-12, 13-20.)
On August 15, 2021, Plaintiff emailed Trugman with
information about the Bowlero account, stating in part, “let’s finally get our
contract in place.” (See UMF 22, Rodriguez Decl., Exhibit 1.)
On August 20, 2021, during a text conversation
about the Bowlero account, Trugman told Plaintiff that “the time has come” and
that Plaintiff should take the Bowlero account elsewhere. (See
UMFs 28-29, Rodriguez Decl., Exhibit 2.)
On August 22, 2022, Trugman sent Plaintiff an email
regarding the future of the Bowlero account and Moving Defendants’ relationship
with Plaintiff[1]
(the “August 22 Email”) that stated, in part:
“1. Notification to Bowlero Corporate Points of Contact will take place
on Friday August 27th at 0800 Pacific Time of your impending departure from
Global 360. You are welcome to notify them sooner if you choose. If you do so,
please include me on all emails as I will do the same.
2. In addition to the week I provided you, I will provide an additional
week to fully transition. What that means is that our last week of payroll for
Global 360 personnel assigned to Bowlero will be September 4th. All pay and
invoices will be that of Global 360 through that date so business as usual
until then. The checks and ACH will continue to be routed the same way to
Global 360 for any expenses through that date.
3. We will share all liability for any employment or incidents that
occur on or before September 4th and with regard to Bowlero. Conversely, all
percentage checks will still be routed through you at the agreed upon rates up
until we have received all payments for Bowlero through that September 4th
date.
4. I am allowing you to convert all personnel associated with the
account into employees of your new venture. I am allowing you to take over 100
percent of the operation, associated with the account.
5. After September 4th, all polos will be returned to Faith since you
will have no utility for them.
6. After the September 4th date you will not interfere with my
personnel, accounts, or any other gesture that would be considered as morally
questionable or creating liability. I promise to do the same for your accounts.
7. The same will be true for DTLA Church/Pasadena (Harvest and
Ambassador). I will allow you to take those as well.” (See UMF 31; Siegel Decl., Exhibit
30.)
The next day, August 23, 2021, Plaintiff contacted
Bowlero’s Vice President of Loss Prevention, William Nichols (“Nichols”), to
discuss his continued relationship with Bowlero and the future of the Bowlero
account. (See UMF 34.) Nichols testified that based on his
conversation with Plaintiff, he was under the impression that Global was unable
to continue with the Bowlero account and was considering engaging Plaintiff’s
new company to handle the account. (See
Siegel Decl., Exhibit E at 21:1-8.)
Trugman separately contacted Bowlero on August 23,
2021. (See
Siegel Decl., Exhibit 12.) Trugman spoke to Bowlero’s legal department
on August 24, 2021. (UMF 38.)
On August 24, 2021, Trugman sent an email to
Bowlero (and copied Plaintiff), stating:
“Dear Bowlero Leadership Team:
First and foremost, thank you for your partnership.
We have very much enjoyed working on your behalf.
I understand you have spoken with David Rodriguez
(copied within) related to his desire to leave Global 360 Protective Services.
He has officially resigned and his last day with Global 360 Protective Services
will be September 4th, 2021. I am very much grateful for his dedicated service
to Global 360 Protective Services.
As such, he has requested that I release him from
our existing Non-Compete Agreement and allow him to approach you to ascertain
if he can provide for your security needs under a different Security company. I
have agreed to this and have waived our Non-Compete Agreement to this limited
scope as it applies to Bowlero. Because of his work on this account and his 10
years with Global 360 Protective Services, I have allowed him to approach you
to ascertain your desire to move with him to the new company. Please note that
I have no knowledge of the viability of the proposed new company and in no way
endorse said company.
All I ask is that you provide me with written
notice of your choice to terminate and release Global 360 Protective Services
from providing security management at your Southern California locations and
releasing us from liability and all agreements or issues arising after
September 4th, 2021. Please be in touch with me as soon as possible on this
matter as it takes some leg work with the Insurance carriers to cancel payroll
as well as notifying our 50 or so employees of this change and securing our
Polos/Uniforms.” (Siegel Decl., Exhibit
31.)
Nichols
separately replied to Trugman’s August 24, 2021 email and asked to speak to
Trugman over the phone. (UMF 43.) Nichols and Trugman spoke on August 25,
2021. (UMF 44.) Nichols expressed his frustration over
Trugman and Plaintiff negotiating the fate of the Bowlero account without input
from Bowlero. (UMF 46.) On August 24, 2021, Trugman emailed Nichols a
contract with terms to govern Global’s services during the period during which
Bowlero decided where it was taking its business. (UMF 47.)
Plaintiff was not copied on this email and the agreement attached to
this email provided for a one-year term.
(See Siegel Decl., Exhibit 16.)
On
August 27, 2021, Nichols decided that it was in Bowlero’s best interest to
continue retaining Global’s services. (See
UMF 49.) Nichols testified that this
decision was not influenced by Trugman.
(See id.)
First Cause of Action: Breach
of Contract
The elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1)
the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3)
defendant’s breach; and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom. (Wall
Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171,
1178.) The elements of a breach of oral
contract claim are the same as those for a breach of written contract: (1) a
contract; (2) its performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) breach; and (4)
damages. (Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v.
Tope (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 437, 453.)
The first cause of action is based
on Moving Defendants’ alleged breach of the terms stated in Trugman’s August 22
Email. Moving Defendants argue that they
are entitled to summary adjudication of this claim on the grounds that: (1)
there is no basis for Trugman’s personal liability; (2) any agreement in the
August 22 Email could not be enforced absent Bowlero’s approval; (3) Moving
Defendants did not breach any of the August 22 Email’s terms; and (4) any
agreement was not supported by consideration.
The Court finds that there are
triable issues of fact that preclude summary adjudication of the first cause of
action with respect to both Moving Defendants.
As noted by Plaintiff’s opposition (the “Opposition”), the text of the August
22 Email was written in the first person by Trugman. This language creates a factual dispute over
Trugman’s intention to be bound by the August 22 Email’s terms in his
individual capacity. Second, contrary to
Moving Defendants’ characterization of its terms, the August 22 Email includes
obligations that precede Bowlero’s agreement to have Plaintiff handle its
account under a separate security company, such as the provision obligating
Moving Defendants and Plaintiff to include each other in communications with
Bowlero before August 27, 2021. The
evidence shows that Trugman independently contacted Bowlero on August 23, 2021
without copying Plaintiff on the email.
There are therefore factual issues over whether the August 22 Email was
breached. Finally, the August 22, 2022
Email suggests that Moving Defendants were willing to part with the Bowlero
account and mutually imposes obligations on Moving Defendants and Plaintiff,
which raises issues regarding the sufficiency of the consideration. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion as to
the first cause of action.
Second
Cause of Action: Promissory Fraud
The
elements of promissory fraud¿ are: (1) a promise made regarding a material fact
without any intention of performing it; (2) the existence of the intent not to
perform at the time the promise was made; (3) intent to deceive or induce the
promisee to enter into a transaction; (4) reasonable reliance by the promisee;
(5) nonperformance by the party making the promise; and (6) resulting damage to
the promisee. (Rossberg v. Bank of
America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1498.)
Based on Trugman’s separate
communication with Bowlero on August 23, 2021, there are factual issues as to
whether Moving Defendants intended to honor the August 22 Email when it was
executed. The Court therefore DENIES the
Motion with respect to the second cause of action.
Third
Cause of Action: Promissory Estoppel
The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are: (1)
a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom
the promise is made; (3) the reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable;
and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be injured by his reliance.
(US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 887,
905.)
For the reasons discussed above regarding the breach
of contract claim, there are triable issues of fact regarding the promissory
estoppel claim. The Court therefore
DENIES the Motion with respect to the third cause of action.
Fourth
Cause of Action: Labor Code Section 2751
Labor Code section 2751 details
requirements for employment agreements involving commissions as a form of
payment. (See Labor Code §
2751.) There is no private right of action
for violations of Labor Code section 2751.
(Swafford v. International Business Machines Corporation (N.D.
Cal. 2019) 383 F.Supp.3d 916, 934.)
Labor Code section 2751 claims may, however, serve as a predicate for
claims brought under the Unlawful Competition Law (“UCL”). (Id.)
Plaintiff does not dispute Moving
Defendants’ argument regarding his right to assert a cause of action under
Labor Code section 2751, but requests leave to amend the Complaint to allow him
to assert a UCL claim. The Court thus
GRANTS the Motion with respect to the fourth cause of action but grants
Plaintiff 20 days leave to file an amended pleading including this underlying
claim in its existing UCL claim.
Fifth
Cause of Action: Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5
Labor Code
section 1102.5, subdivision (b) provides that an employer, or any person acting
on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for
disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee
disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement
agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who
has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or
noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any
public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee
has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of
state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local,
state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information
is part of the employee's job duties.
(Lab. Code § 1102.5, subd. (b).)
Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not
engage in any protected activity and that Plaintiff did not experience any
retaliation or adverse employment action.
Construing the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds that there
are triable issues of fact on both of these points. First, although not explicitly stated in the
evidence submitted with the Motion or Opposition, Plaintiff’s ongoing
communications regarding the structure and allocation of the profits from the
Bowlero account may be construed as a disclosure over potential Labor Code
section 2751 claims. Second, although
Moving Defendants characterize Plaintiff’s separation from Global as a
resignation, the evidence shows that it was ultimately Trugman who decided to
sever ties with Plaintiff and told Plaintiff to handle the Bowlero account on
his own. There are thus triable issues
of fact as to whether Plaintiff was terminated or whether the Parties mutually
agreed to part ways. The Court therefore
DENIES the Motion with respect to the fifth cause of action.
Sixth
Cause of Action: Wrongful Termination
For the reasons discussed with
respect to the fifth cause of action, there are triable issues of fact as to
whether Plaintiff was terminated in violation in public policy. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion with
respect to the sixth cause of action.
Seventh
Cause of Action: Interference
with Contractual Relations
The elements of intentional interference with
contractual relations are: (1) a valid contract between the plaintiff and a
third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of this contract; (3) the
defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the
contractual relationship; (4) an actual breach or disruption of the contractual
relationship; and (5) resulting damage.
(Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th
26, 55.)
Regardless of Bowlero’s initial cooperation with
Plaintiff, Plaintiff has not presented evidence that he ever entered into a
formal contractual relationship with Bowlero.
Because there was no valid contract for Moving Defendants to interfere
with, the Court GRANTS the Motion with respect to the seventh cause of action.
Eighth
Cause of Action: Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage
The elements of intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage are: (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff
and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the
plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional
acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4)
actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff
proximately caused by the acts of the defendant. (Marsh v. Anesthesis Services Medical
Group, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 480, 504.) The defendant’s “intentional acts” must be
independently wrongful. (See Korea
Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1158.) An act is independently wrongful if it is
unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory,
regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard. (Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020)
9 Cal.5th 1130, 1142.)
There are triable issues of fact as
to whether Moving Defendants wrongfully interfered with Plaintiff’s
relationship with Bowlero based on Trugman’s separate communications with
Bowlero that occurred after the August 22 Email was executed. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion with
respect to the eighth cause of action.
Ninth
Cause of Action: UCL
The UCL prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business act or practice. (Bus. &
Prof. Code § 17200; see Clark v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th
605, 610.) To show a violation of the
UCL, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a loss or deprivation of money or property
sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury; and (2)
show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the
unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the
claim. (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior
Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322.) A
business act or practice only needs to meet one of the requirements to be
considered unfair competition under the UCL.
(Daro v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1093.)
The ninth cause of action is
predicated on Trugman’s communications with Bowlero wherein Trugman represented
that Plaintiff resigned from Global. (See
Complaint ¶¶ 61-62.) Based on the
factual disputes over whether Plaintiff resigned or was terminated and the
potential breach of the August 22 Email, the Court finds that there are triable
issues of fact regarding the ninth cause of action. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion with
respect to the ninth cause of action, subject to the ruling on the Fourth Cause
of Action, supra.
Eleventh
Cause of Action: Breach of Oral Contract
The elements of a breach of oral contract claim are
the same as those for a breach of written contract: (1) a contract; (2) its
performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) breach; and (4) damages. (Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope
(2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 437, 453.)
The eleventh cause of action is
rooted in Moving Defendants’ alleged breach of Trugman’s oral promise that
Plaintiff was entitled to 50 percent of the profits from the Bowlero
account. Although the Parties dispute
whether Trugman ever truly agreed to evenly share the Bowlero account profits
between Global and Plaintiff, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that as of
at least April 2020, Trugman did not agree to this distribution. Although Plaintiff repeatedly thereafter
attempted to renegotiate his profits, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that
on April 16, 2020, Plaintiff agreed to a 30 percent split of the profits. (See Siegel Decl., Exhibit 15.) There is no evidence that Trugman ever
offered to share profits evenly after April 16, 2020. Under Civil Code section 1697, a contract not
in writing may be modified in any respect by consent of the parties, in
writing, without a new consideration, and is extinguished thereby to the extent
of the modification. (Civ. Code §
1697.) Thus, to the extent that there
was ever an oral agreement to share Bowlero profits evenly, such agreement was
modified as of at least April 16, 2020.
The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion with respect to the eleventh cause
of action.
Punitive
Damages
A
plaintiff may recover punitive damages in an action for breach of an obligation
not arising from contract when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or
malice. (Civ. Code § 3294, subd.
(a).)
Based
on the factual disputes discussed above, the Court finds that there are triable
issues of fact that preclude summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s entitlement to
punitive damages. The Court therefore
DENIES the Motion with respect to punitive damages.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
In consideration
of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages
that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect
if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead
intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send
an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the
hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in
person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day
of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at
any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule
the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal
appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that
adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.
Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at
SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org. If the
department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the
hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 10th day of March 2023
|
|
|
Hon.
Holly J. Fujie Judge
of the Superior Court |