Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV46709, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 18, 2023

Case Name: Loyd v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 21STCV02018

Matter: Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party: Defendants Walmart Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Oscar Mejia 

Responding Party: Plaintiff Melissa Loyd 

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.  But, see the Court’s comments below.

Moving parties 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 January 19, 2021, Plaintiff Melissa Loyd filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Walmart Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Oscar Mejia for (1) defamation, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), (3) FEHA gender harassment, (4) FEHA gender discrimination, (5) FEHA failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, (6) FEHA disability discrimination, (7) violation of the CFRA, (8) FEHA retaliation, (9) FEHA failure to accommodate, (10) FEHA failure to engage in interactive process, (11) wrongful termination, (12) FEHA disability harassment, (13) failure to pay overtime wages, (14) violation of the UCL, and (15) fraud.

On April 11, 2023, the Court granted the motion for summary adjudication of Defendants Walmart Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Oscar Mejia as to the first, fourth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, and twelfth causes of action.  The Court otherwise denied the motion.

Defendants now seek reconsideration of the Court’s summary adjudication ruling, contending that the Court should have granted the motion as to the eighth and eleventh causes of action, as well as the issue of punitive damages.  Defendants argue that Plaintiff opposed the summary adjudication motion as to the eighth and eleventh causes of action based on unpleaded theories: (1) that Plaintiff had been improperly denied a promotion and (2) that Plaintiff was thereafter constructively discharged.  Defendants also argue that, for the purpose of punitive damages, Plaintiff misrepresented that Laura Kish had declined to investigate Plaintiff’s harassment complaints.  Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s citation to Kish’s deposition reveals that Kish stated that she did not initiate an investigation only because that was another employee’s responsibility.  

Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b) states in relevant part, “A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”

The Motion is denied.  But, out of an abundance of caution and an eye towards fairness, the Court will require Plaintiff to amend her Complaint (within twenty days) to clarify that the eighth and eleventh causes of action relate to the denial of a promotion or a subsequent constructive discharge.  Defendants may file a subsequent motion for summary adjudication as to only the eighth and eleventh causes of action.

As to the issue of punitive damages, no new law or facts have been presented.  Defendants had an ample opportunity to argue that the evidence did not support Plaintiff’s contention that Kish declined an investigation, but the reply did not discuss this.  Rather, the reply argued, “According to Plaintiff, (1) Kish did not investigate her complaint (Opp. 15:27-28) . . .  This is hardly malicious or oppressive conduct.”  Defendants do not get multiple bites at the apple because they failed to diligently brief the issues or examine Plaintiff’s contentions.

In sum, the Motion is denied, subject to the Court’s orders as to amendment and a subsequent summary adjudication motion.

Moving parties 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.