Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00024430-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00024430-CU-WT-CTL CARRINGTON VS CHRISTIAN UNIFIED SCHOOLS OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Vickie Carrington's motion to set aside sanctions order is DENIED.

The court is inclined to grant Defendant Christian Unified Schools of San Diego's unopposed motion for a protective order, but will hear from the parties on this issue.

This court previously granted Defendant's motion for sanction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, and awarded it sanctions of $5000. (ROA #57.) Plaintiff now seeks to set aside that award, purportedly based on counsel's mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) The court rejects this argument; at best, the award was a result of counsel's inexcusable neglect in failing to adequately investigate the facts of their client's case (namely, that Plaintiff was not terminated and was fully paid through the term of her employment contract), and then failing to understand the legal authority that precludes claims for wrongful termination arising from an employer's decision not to renew an employment contract.

According to Plaintiff's counsel, the FAC was simply 'unclear' because it mistakenly framed the breach of contract as founded on an allegation that Defendant breached the applicable employment contract by wrongfully terminating Plaintiff, but it should have been framed to make clear that Defendant's 'breach' arose from its purported failure to comply (by engaging in discriminatory conduct against Plaintiff) with paragraph 10 of the contract, which states: 'School agrees to abide by all applicable laws regarding Employee's terms and conditions of employment.' Plaintiff made this same argument in connection with the underlying motion for sanctions, and the court found it lacked sufficient merit to be addressed. The court will do so now.

First, Plaintiff has not cited (and likely cannot cite) to any legal authority that would support this tenuous contract theory, whereby a Plaintiff is enabled to convert a tort based in statute (discrimination) into a contract action. Second, given the facts of this case, the court is unsure what contract damages Plaintiff could possibly allege that were caused by Defendant's allegedly discriminatory conduct. Plaintiff was fully paid all monetary benefits arising from the contract, Defendant was under no obligation to renew the contract, and the kinds of tort damages that may be available in a discrimination claim are not available as contract damages. Finally, the court finds it necessary to clarify that when it gave Plaintiff leave to amend the FAC, it did not intend to imply that the claims in Plaintiff's FAC might be viable; rather, the court was merely acknowledging that Plaintiff may be able to allege different causes of action founded on the same general set of facts.

Plaintiff and her counsel were given numerous opportunities to withdraw the plainly deficient claims that Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3049881  20 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CARRINGTON VS CHRISTIAN UNIFIED SCHOOLS OF SAN DIEGO  37-2023-00024430-CU-WT-CTL ultimately resulted in the sanction order. The court already reduced the requested sanction by more than two-thirds, from $16,200 (reflecting fees incurred by Defendant) to $5,000. The court declines to again reduce the sanction amount.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to set aside the sanctions order is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3049881  20