Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 21STCV02566, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV02566    Hearing Date: December 4, 2024    Dept: I

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.  

Preliminarily, the court has considered the motion on its merits.  While there are limits on the statutory motion, it is different for common law motion.

The major problem is that the wrongful conduct continued over time.  And at least the most recent are plainly within the statute of limitations, especially given the COVID extension.  That is true even of the Labor Code violations.  While there could be a bar to some of the Labor Code issues that fall outside the statute of limitations, that is not an issue that can be addressed by way of this motion.  And the court does not believe that the alleged assaults can be barred on statute of limitations even for those outside the time period so long as plaintiff can prove at least one act within the statutory period and that the conduct was part of a continuing course of conduct.

Way seems to contend that he owes plaintiff no duties outside the employment relationship.  The court is not sure what defendant means.  If defendant means that he did not owe plaintiff a duty not to sexually assault her, the argument is frivolous.  If it is something else, the court does not know what it is.  Similarly meritless is the argument that the sexual assault had nothing to do with gender.

As to the allegations that defendant owes no duty regarding the alleged unpaid overtime because he did not know plaintiff worked it, the argument also fails.  The court cannot determine that on this pleading motion.  Nor is it a defense that defendant was personally unaware of the OT.  If the OT was worked, it must be paid.  The same is true regarding the accuracy of the work statements and the waiting time penalties.