Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV46937, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 18, 2023

Case Name: Remneff v. Bellatrix Media, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 19STCV15486

Matter: Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

Moving Party: Defendants Bellatrix Media, Inc., Inter/Media Time Buying Corporation, 

and Inter/Media Advertising, Inc., joined by Maureen Rourke

Responding Party: Plaintiff Melanie Remneff

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

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. 

This is an employment action with a defamation cause of action.  

On January 4, 2022, the Court issued a 17-page ruling denying Defendants Bellatrix Media, Inc.’s, Inter/Media Time Buying Corporation’s, and Inter/Media Advertising, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and denying their motion for summary adjudication, except as to Plaintiff Melanie Remneff’s harassment claim.

Defendants, joined by Maureen Rourke, now bring a renewed motion for summary judgment/adjudication.  The Motion has two bases.  First, Defendants contend that the Court’s prior ruling relied on the declaration of Patsy Holman, but Holman has now sat for a deposition in which she stated she could not recall the statements in her declaration.  Second, as to Plaintiff’s defamation claim premised on a theory of compelled self-publication to prospective employers Michelle Green/Two12 Media and Medicx Media, Defendants contend that “Ms. Green never spoke to Remneff and merely received an unsolicited introductory email from her agent. Exh. 9 (Green Decl. 4-5; attached Exh. ‘B’ thereto). Ms. Green’s declaration (and the attached email) demonstrates why Remneff’s carefully worded declaration should be completely disregarded. Similarly she vaguely states that concerning Medicx Media in May 2019 (before her deposition), ‘I told them all the reasons and I did not get the job.’ Exh. 8 (Remneff Decl. 7:26-28). Yet, at deposition she denied telling prospective employers that she was charged with fraud or dishonesty. Exh. 6 (Depo. II 261-64, 336-37).”

Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b) states, “A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon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. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.”

Defendants’ contentions with respect to Holman lack merit.  As an initial matter, the Court did not rely on the Holman declaration for each and every cause of action as Defendants seem to contend.  For example, the Holman declaration had nothing to do with Plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodations.  Second, the Holman declaration was not the only basis for finding pretext.  The Court also found that while Defendants contended that Plaintiff performed poorly, there was no contemporaneous written record of poor performance; rather, a jury might find that Defendants levied these allegations only after Plaintiff took medical leave.  Third, Holman explicitly rejected that she was recanting her testimony.  She did state that she could not recall essentially any of her statements; however, this is apparently a credibility issue for the jury.  Notably, this differs from the factual scenario in which a plaintiff manufactures evidence to avoid summary judgment after having previously denied having such evidence.  

As to defamation, Defendants target Plaintiff’s theory of compelled self-publication to Two12 Media and Medicx Media, but the Court’s ruling also related to Defendants’ statements about Plaintiff’s performance to other employees and noted that these discussions may have exceeded the scope of the common interest privilege.

In sum, Defendants have not shown any substantial reason to reverse course on the Court’s prior ruling.  Therefore, the Motion is denied.  The objections are overruled.  The Requests for Judicial Notice are granted.

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.