Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV36305, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36305    Hearing Date: March 12, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 12, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication

Moving Party: Defendants Disney Networks Group, LLC, TFCF Payroll Services, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jacobo Davalos

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IS DENIED.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative third amended complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) sexual battery; (2) battery; (3) hostile work environment sexual harassment; (4) quid pro quo sexual harassment; (5) wrongful termination; (6) constructive termination; (7) negligent hiring, supervision and retention; (8) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; (9) IIED; (10) gender discrimination; and (11) retaliation.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants The Walt Disney Company; Disney Networks Group, LLC fka Fox Networks Group, Inc., and TFCF Payroll Services, Inc. fka Fox Payroll Services Inc. from January 2017 to December 2019. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Cesar Fabricio Sedano, who was employed as a Vice President of Finance for Defendants, sexually harassed and battered Plaintiff on numerous occasions.

ANALYSIS

“The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Trial judges are required “to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) Once the defendant has met that burden, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.)  To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce “substantial responsive evidence.” (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

A. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

The Disney Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

FEHA requires a plaintiff file an administrative charge with the Civil Rights Department (CRD, formerly known as the DFEH) within three years of the alleged unlawful conduct before filing suit. (Gov. Code § 12960(e).) Plaintiff was employed by Fox from 2018 to 2022. Disney merged with parts of Fox in March 2019, allegedly assuming Fox’s liabilities from 2018 to March 2019. Plaintiff alleges Disney is liable for Sedano’s acts that occurred during this time. Plaintiff also alleges Sedano was employed by Disney in 2019. Plaintiff allegedly was constructively terminated by Fox in October 2022. Plaintiff filed an administrative charge on January 6, 2023. The Disney Defendants maintain Plaintiff had three years from March 2019 to file an administrative charge against Disney.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts the FEHA claims are timely under the continuing violations doctrine. California courts have held an employer may be liable under FEHA for unlawful conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations if it is sufficiently connected to the unlawful conduct within the limitations period. (See e.g. Blue Fountain Pools and Spas Inc. v. Sup. Ct. San Bernardino (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 239.)

As discussed in the Court’s ruling on the Disney Defendants’ demurrer, there is no doubt that Fox would be liable for the acts that occurred outside of the limitations period under the continuing violations doctrine. The issue here is whether Plaintiff was required to file a separate administrative charge against Disney within three years of March 2019. Defendants assert Plaintiff cannot apply the continuing violations doctrine to Disney because Disney committed no wrongful acts during the limitations period. Plaintiff asserts that because Disney purchased Fox’s liabilities, it stepped into Fox’s shoes. Plaintiff also presents significant evidence showing Sedano was jointly employed by Disney and Fox, including that Sedano kept his office at Fox while he worked for Disney. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The motion for summary adjudication of the third, fourth, eighth, ninth and tenth causes of action for FEHA violations is DENIED.

B. Negligence

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s claim for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention fails because Sedano’s conduct was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendants. Defendants present evidence showing no similar complaints were made against Sedano while he was employed by Defendants. In opposition, Plaintiff presents significant evidence showing employees complained of a hostile working environment created by Sedano beginning in 2016. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to negligence.

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the seventh cause of action is DENIED.