Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STCP03876, Date: 2024-03-27 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.

Butler v. AFT College Staff Guild Local 1521A, et al.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Respondent AFT College Staff Guild Local 1521A’s Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED TO JULY 25, 2024 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY APRIL 24, 204, PETITIONER IS TO FILE AND SERVE A PLEADING SETTING FORTH THE CLAIMS RAISED BY THIS APPEAL, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORMAT AS A COMPLAINT. RESPONDENT IS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THAT PLEADING PER THE TIME REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

On October 26, 2022, Petitioner Velma Butler (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Appeal of Labor Commissioner Award against Respondent AFT College Staff Guild Local 1521A (“Respondent”). The Petition is brought pursuant to Cal. Labor Code section 98.2 and was originally assigned to an unlimited jurisdiction court. On February 23, 2024, the Court overruled Respondent’s demurrer to the Appeal, which was substantively a motion to dismiss, and four days later ordered the action to the transferred to the limited jurisdiction court. (Minute Orders, 02/23/24 and 02/27/24.) On January 12, 2024, Respondent filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. Petitioner filed an opposition on March 13, 2024.

Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code section 98.2, Petitioner appeals a decision of the California Labor Commissioner rendered on September 27, 2022. (Pet., Exh. A.) Under this statute, “[w]ithin 10 days after service of notice of an order, decision, or award the parties may seek review by filing an appeal to the superior court, where the appeal shall be heard de novo.” (Lab. Code, § 98.2, subd. (a).) It therefore appears that where a trial de novo is authorized in the superior court, proceedings are subject to the rules usually applicable to superior court actions. (Sales Dimensions v. Superior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 757, 761.) Furthermore, “an interpretation of [section 98.2] must be arrived at which, if possible, gives effect to both the term ‘review’ and the term ‘de novo.’ (Citations omitted). Since the superior court may hear testimony, including any new evidence, the findings of the Labor Commissioner are entitled to no weight whatsoever, and the proceedings are truly ‘a trial anew in the fullest sense.’” (Id. at 763.) In a case where the question of discovery during the trial de novo was raised, the Court of Appeals explained the broad latitude of the trial court in determining the procedures in such an appeal:

The approach which we have outlined is consistent with the power of the courts “to adopt any suitable method of practice, both in ordinary actions and special proceedings, if the procedure is not specified by statute or by rules adopted by the Judicial Council.” (Citations omitted.) The superior court is vested with jurisdiction to hear the appeal de novo. Yet, no procedures for exercising that jurisdiction are specified. Therefore, the superior court, in the exercise of its discretion, may establish an appropriate procedure on discovery in each case.

(Id. at 763-764.) Likewise, here, the Court must establish an appropriate procedure for addressing the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. “The purpose of a summary judgment proceeding is to permit a party to show that material factual claims arising from the pleadings need not be tried because they are not in dispute.” (Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 168 [citing Andalon v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 600, 604-605, 208 Cal.Rptr. 899, italics added; § 437c, subd. (a).) Accordingly, a motion for summary judgment may only address the issues as framed by the pleadings. (Canales v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1262, 1269.)

This action is not yet ripe for a motion for summary judgment because there are no effective pleadings from which parties and the Court may reference the materiality of the issues raised. Prior to any hearing on a motion for summary judgment, the parties must file the equivalent of a complaint setting forth Petitioner’s claims and Respondent’s answer thereto. The hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment, therefore, will be continued.