Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV34589, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34589    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            After review, the Court has identified the following deficiencies:

-         Plaintiff did not submit a memorandum of points and authorities setting forth the applicable law for each of his claims.

-         Plaintiff’s own declaration still does not show a causal connection between his age and his termination. The fact that his boss made comments about him not working faster is insufficient to show that his age was the reason for his termination, especially when the apparent explanation for his termination was that he failed to give his boss the correct order.

-         Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to show his termination was linked to his complaint to Defendant Tom Paziouros.

-         Plaintiff’s declaration fails to establish an entitlement to intentional infliction of emotional distress damages or punitive damages in any amount

-         Plaintiff must submit evidence of his back injury, or explain why no such evidence can be provided.

-         Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that he disclosed labor law violations.

-         Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to show negligent supervision and retention.

-         Plaintiff has not established a basis for Defendant Thanos’ or Tom Paziouros’ personal liability.

-         Plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient to show that Defendant Christine Paziouros conduct rises to the level of harassment. Plaintiff generally asserts that “she would make comments about my age and how I was not working when I used to when I was younger.” Plaintiff does not clarify what any of these comments were, and comments that he was not working how he used to when he was younger are insufficient as a matter of law to constitute harassment. (See Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377, noting that to constitute actionable harassment the conduct must be sufficiently pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.)

-         Plaintiff must dismiss all causes of action wherein Plaintiff cannot satisfy the burden of proof. Plaintiff will be provided one more opportunity to submit evidence to address the deficiencies identified herein. As it stands, the only causes of action that Plaintiff has established are the Labor Code violations.