Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 19STCV30322 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 1, 2022 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY OCTOBER 17, 2022, DEFENDANT IS TO PROVIDE THE DEPARTMENT CLERK WITH AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH RATINOFF, LODGED ON JUNE 18, 2021. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for Retaliation in Violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; and Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Grant summary judgment, or adjudication, in Defendant’s favor. Plaintiff’s alleged oral complaints and emails were not protected activities, nor is there any causal link between Plaintiff’s complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and his suspension. Defendant suspended Plaintiff for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons due to his inappropriate comments and conduct towards other coworkers. The second cause of action additionally fails because Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

OPPOSITION: Triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Plaintiff’s complaints were protected activities under FEHA and the Labor Code. Likewise, triable issues of material fact exist as to whether there was a causal link between those complaints and Plaintiff’s suspension. Plaintiff was suspended in close temporal proximity to the complaints and Defendant’s conduct was consistent with retaliatory motives. Next, Defendant’s proffered reasons for suspending Plaintiff were pretextual. Finally, Plaintiff did not fail to exhaust his administrative remedies.

REPLY: Plaintiff fails to provide evidence that any of the material facts in support of the Motion are disputed.

On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff Edward Kyle (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for (1) retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and (2) retaliation in violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5 against Defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”). The action was originally assigned to an unlimited jurisdiction court.

Defendant filed its Answer on December 12, 2019. On August 4, 2020, the Court signed the parties’ proposed protective order.

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, on June 18, 2021. The hearing date—originally September 3, 2021—was continued numerous times. Before the Motion was heard, the case was reclassified as a limited jurisdiction case and reassigned to the limited jurisdiction court. (Minute Order, 06/27/22.) The opposition was filed under seal and lodged pursuant to the protective order on June 13, 2022. Defendant reply on June 24, 2022.

Defendant’s moving papers included the declaration of Elizabeth Ratinoff, lodged under seal, on June 18, 2021. The Court has been unable to obtain an electronic copy of the lodged declaration from defense counsel in advance of the hearing date. Therefore, the Court has been unable to review the moving papers in their entirety in order to issue a tentative ruling on the merits of the Motion.