Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV17462, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: June 22, 2023

Case Name: Perez v. Ideal Face & Body, et al.

Case No.: 19STCV33793

Matter: Motion for Summary Adjudication

Moving Party: Plaintiff Cindy Perez

Responding Party: Defendant Ideal Face & Body

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion for Summary Adjudication is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff Cindy Perez filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendant Ideal Face & Body for (1) FEHA disability discrimination, (2) FEHA retaliation, (3) FEHA failure to accommodate, (4) FEHA failure to engage in the interactive process, (5) wrongful termination, (6) FEHA sex and pregnancy discrimination, (7) violation of pregnancy disability laws, (8) violation of the CFRA, and (9) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation.  

On May 2, 2023, the Court dismissed the eighth cause of action pursuant to Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication.  Defendant’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication was otherwise denied.

Plaintiff now seeks summary adjudication of the first through sixth causes of action.

The law of summary judgment provides courts “a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  In reviewing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, courts employ a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”  (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)  The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue, in which case the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).)  To show a triable issue of material fact exists, the opposing party may not rely on the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but instead must set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.  (Aguilar, at p. 849.)  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.)

The Motion lacks merit.  As discussed when ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication, there are competing facts that would require a jury resolution.  Specifically, while Plaintiff presents evidence relating to her leave discussions and other employee statements, Defendant presents evidence relating to personnel needs in the face of financial strain resulting from a failed build out.   

Therefore, the Motion for Summary Adjudication is denied.  The objections are overruled.  The Requests for Judicial Notice are granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.