Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STCV23896, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23896    Hearing Date: August 29, 2023    Dept: 26

Guerrero v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is GRANTED.

DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Guadalupe Guerrero (“Guerrero”) filed the instant action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) on June 28, 2021. Defendant filed an answer on October 28, 2021. Following Plaintiff’s death, the Court granted the motion of Guerrero’s successor-in-interest, Maria Del Carmen Hernandez (“Plaintiff”), to continue the action. (Minute Order, 06/29/22.) The action was reclassified from the unlimited jurisdiction court to the limited jurisdiction court on August 3, 2022. (Minute Order, 08/03/22.)

On March 16, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted against Plaintiff. (Minute Order, 03/16/23,)

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, on March 30, 2023. The Motion initially came for hearing on June 15, 2023, at which time Plaintiff appeared and requested a continuance to obtain an attorney. (Minute Order, 06/15/23.) On August 18, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) hostile work environment based on age in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) failure to prevent hostile work environment harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) age discrimination in violation of FEHA; (4) retaliation in violation FEHA; and (5) failure to prevent age discrimination and retaliation in violation FEHA. The Complaint alleges that Guerrero began working for Defendant in 1991. (Compl., ¶10.) Most recently, Guerrero was Maintenance Lead for the Denker Recreation Center (“Denker”). (Ibid.) Towards the end of his employment, Guerrero’s supervisor, Senior Lead Gerardo Luna (“Luna”), made comments like “you’re too old to be working” and “you should quit already.” (Id. at ¶11.) Guerrero informed Supervisor Leo Uribe (“Uribe”), who told Guerrero to ignore the comments. On November 24, 2020, Uribe told Luna to inform Guerrero he would be transferred to a different park because there was not much work at Denker. (Id. at ¶12.) Luna informed Guerrero he was being sent home due to relocation and when Guerrero asked for the reason, Luna said he did not know but if Guerrero was unhappy he should quit because he was old and should not be working. (Ibid.)

On the same day, Guerrero’s daughter, Martha Guerrero (“Martha”), informed Uribe about the incident. (Id. at ¶13.) The next day, Uribe told Martha he submitted a report to Human Resources about the incident and that Guerrero should not show up to the new work location until the investigation was closed. (Id. at ¶14.) On December 7, 2020, Guerrero sent an email to Theresa Walker (“Walker”), the head of Human Resources to provide his side of the incident. (Id. at ¶15.) Walker did not confirm receipt of the email until three weeks later. (Ibid.) On December 8, 2020, Senior Maintenance Supervisor William Lopez (“Lopez”) told Martha they were going to submit a termination letter for Guerrero. (Id. at ¶16.) Guerrero’s termination was confirmed on January 25, 2021, at which time he was 85 years old. (Id. at ¶¶17-18.) Guerrero was embarrassed, ashamed, emotionally broken, and in financial desperation due to the termination. (Id. at ¶19.)

Admissions that Warrant Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant

On March 16, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem requests for admission, dated November 28, 2022, admitted. (Minute Order, 03/16/23.) The admissions admit that Guerrero was terminated because he threatened to fight his supervisor in November 2020. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 7; Corea Decl., ¶2 and Exh. 1 at p. 3.) They also admit that there is no evidence to demonstrate Guerrero was terminated for any unlawful reason. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 8; Corea Decl., ¶2 and Exh. 1 at p. 3.) Finally, the admissions admit that there is no evidence to demonstrate Guerrero was unlawfully harassed or discriminated against in violation of FEHA. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 9-10; Corea Decl., ¶2 and Exh. 1 at p. 3.)

This evidence carries Defendant’s initial burden of proof to demonstrate that no triable issues of material fact exist regarding Plaintiff’s inability to prove the causes of action asserted in the Complaint. Plaintiff’s admissions directly contradict the allegations in the Complaint and the burden now shifts to Plaintiff to submit evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of material fact in support of the causes of action. However, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the instant motion.

Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is GRANTED.

DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.