Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV01269, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01269    Hearing Date: December 20, 2022    Dept: R

The court cannot say on this showing that plaintiff has a probability of success on the merits.  The termination was purportedly for cause.  If true, that will defeat the claim.  Plaintiff contends that defendant must prove cause at this point.  That is not really right.  The termination stated it was for cause.  The court will not issue a writ without some showing by plaintiff that such was not the case.  And even were the court to require defendant to show cause, it has put in enough evidence to meet its burden.  And some of the communications upon which plaintiff relies were not sent to plaintiff at all.  Plaintiff, in a reply filed Friday, disputes the facts set forth in the opposition.  But this court is not prepared to weigh the evidence at this stage, especially evidence presented two court days before the hearing.

That said, if the allegations plaintiff is making turn out to be true—such as establishing that the email was blind copied company-wide—it would go badly for the defense, which implied that plaintiff did not get the email.  While one might artfully say that defendant merely pointed out that plaintiff was not in the “to” line, the clear implication is that the defense is saying that plaintiff was not an intended recipient at all.  If it turns out that he was, it would suggest to the court that defendant and defendant’s counsel intentionally attempted to mislead the court.  That would be a bad development for the defense.

As such, the request for a writ of attachment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a renewed motion after some additional discovery.