Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: VC066228, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: VC066228    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: C

CITIZENS OF HUMANITY, LLC VS NICK LACY

Case No. VC066228

Hearing Date: 12/05/23 @ 10:30am

#7

Tentative Order

Plaintiff Citizens of Humanity, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

Opposing party to give notice. 

Background

Plaintiff CITIZENS OF HUMANITY, LLC (“Citizens”) alleges Defendant Nick Lacy (“Lacy”) performed some modeling work for Citizens for a fee of $7,500.00.  Pursuant to Lacy’s instructions, Citizens paid the fee to Lacy’s modeling agency which in turn paid Lacy.  Lacy then filed administrative claims with the Labor Commissioner alleging that Citizens owed him $126,999 in waiting-time penalties because Citizens failed to pay him directly.  Citizens filed this lawsuit on April 11, 2017, after Lacy filed his claims with the Labor Commissioner.  Citizens’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) requests a declaration that Citizens is not liable to Lacy for any Labor Code violation. (Id., ¶¶ 20-22, Prayer for Relief ¶1.) Citizens also alleges, among other things, that Lacy defrauded it by having his agent, Next, demand that Citizens pay Next, instead of paying Lacy directly – all the while knowing that he (Lacy) would sue Citizens for not paying Lacy directly. (Id., ¶¶36-38.)

On November 5, 2020, the Court denied a motion by Lacy for summary adjudication of, inter alia, Citizens’ first cause of action for declaratory relief on the issue of whether Lacy was an employee of Citizens.

On February 14, 2023, all parties, through their respective counsel of record, stipulated to continue the trial, and the Court entered an order continuing the trial per the stipulation of all parties.  Specifically, the Stipulation to Continue Trial and the Order Continuing Trial explicitly stated: “The continuance of the trial date shall not result in a continuance of the previous deadlines for completion of discovery, expert disclosures and discovery and motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication.” (Hall Dec., ¶ 2; Exs. A & B, emphasis added.)

Citizens filed its Motion for Summary Judgement, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication on September 25, 2023. 

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c).)  Where a defendant seeks summary judgment or adjudication, he must show that either “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.”  (Id. at §437c(o)(2).)  A defendant may satisfy this burden by showing that the claim “cannot be established” because of the lack of evidence on some essential element of the claim.  (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 574, 590.)  Once the defendant meets this 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 defense thereto.”  (Id.)   

Until the moving defendant has discharged its burden of proof, the opposing plaintiff has no burden to come forward with any evidence. Once the moving defendant has discharged its burden as to a particular cause of action, however, the plaintiff may defeat the motion by producing evidence showing that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2).)  On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party's supporting documents are strictly construed and those of his opponent liberally construed, and doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment should be resolved against granting the motion.  (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21.) 

Discussion

Unless the court has ordered or the parties have agreed to an earlier time, a MSJ must be heard at least 30 days before the date of trial. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(a)(3).) “The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(a)(3).)

A party has the capacity to waive even procedural rules designed to protect fundamental rights. “‘It is a well-recognized proposition that “[a] person is free to waive any or all procedures required and designed to safeguard fundamental rights” …  Such waiver may be express, i.e., by stipulation of the parties, or implied.’” (In re Marriage of Binette (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1130.)

As discussed above, in February 2023, all parties, through their respective counsel of record, stipulated to continue the trial, and the Court entered an order continuing the trial per the stipulation of all parties. Both the Stipulation to Continue Trial and the Order Continuing Trial explicitly stated: “The continuance of the trial date shall not result in a continuance of the previous deadlines for completion of discovery, expert disclosures and discovery and motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication.” (Hall Dec., ¶ 2; Exs. A & B, emphasis added.) Notably, both the Stipulation to Continue Trial and the Order Continuing Trial were drafted by counsel for COH. (Hall Dec., ¶ 2.)  Not only did Citizens make a clear written waiver of the statutory extension of the MSJ deadline upon continuation of the trial date, but it also caused the waiver to become an order of the court.

The Court finds that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable stipulation to continue trial and not to continue the previous deadline for motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication (i.e., 30 days before the February 2023 trial date).  Citizens asks this court to find good cause to hear the motion because the motion is clearly meritorious and granting the motion will obviate the need for a trial.  The court declines to exercise its discretion to find good cause.  As much as the court would favor an efficient resolution of the present matter, hearing the motion at this juncture is directly at odds with the mutual understanding of the parties and, in the court’s view, is contrary to basic notions of fair play.  In denying Citizens’ motion, the court expresses no opinion regarding the merits of Citizens’ lawsuit. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication is DENIED.