Judge Kimberly Knill, Case 30-2021-01214404-CU-OE-CJC 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kimberly Knill, Case: 30-2021-01214404-CU-OE-CJC, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant Glow Day Spa’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of matters filed in the present lawsuit is denied as unnecessary because the Court may consider its own orders in this lawsuit without a request for judicial notice.

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(2) provides, “A defendant . . . has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. 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.”

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes of action for (1) age harassment/hostile work environment, (2) age discrimination, (3) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) violation of Labor Code 226.8 willful misclassification, (6) failure to provide rest periods, (7) failure to provide meal periods, (8) failure to provide an accurate itemized statement, (9) waiting time penalties, (10) violation of Labor Code § 351-improper withholding of tips, (11) Labor Code retaliation, (12) violations of Business and Professions Code § 17200, and (13) failure to pay overtime.

The Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth, fifth, and twelfth causes of action on 1/7/2022.

The Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem answers to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One (RFAs) admitted on 12/2/222.

“RFAs are different from other civil discovery tools such as depositions, interrogatories, and requests for documents. Most of the other discovery procedures are aimed primarily at assisting counsel to prepare for trial. Requests for admissions, on the other hand, are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried. Thus, such requests, in a most definite manner, are aimed at expediting the trial.” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774–775 (cleaned up).)

“Matters that are admitted or deemed admitted through RFA discovery devices are conclusively established in the litigation and are not subject to being contested through contradictory evidence.” (Id. at p. 775.) “Under the RFA procedure postdating the Civil Discovery Act, a propounding party must take affirmative steps—by bringing a formal ‘deemed admitted’ motion—to have RFAs to which timely responses are not received deemed admitted. In the event responses to RFAs are not timely served, the responding party waives any objections thereto (§ 2033.280, subd. (a)), and ‘[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ (id. subd. (b)). Unless the court determines that the responding party ‘has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220,’ it must order the RFAs deemed admitted. (Id. subd. (c).) A deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (Id. at pp. 775-776 (cleaned up).)

1st Cause of Action

RFA No. 1 asked Plaintiff to admit, “YOU presently have no knowledge of any facts to support YOUR first cause of action for Age Harassment / Hostile Work Environment (Government Code § 12923, 12 940 et. Seq), as alleged in YOUR COMPLAINT.”