Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV13576, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13576    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 14, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Marion Martinez

Responding Party: Defendants West Hills Hospital, HCA Healthcare, Inc., CHC Payroll Agent, Inc., HCA Human Resources, LLC, Los Robles Regional Medical Center, Charlene Timms, and Adam Gardner

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RPDS IS GRANTED. THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFAS IS DENIED.

Plaintiff 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 December 18, 2023, Plaintiff Marion Martinez filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendants West Hills Hospital, HCA Healthcare, Inc., CHC Payroll Agent, Inc., HCA Human Resources, LLC, Los Robles Regional Medical Center, Charlene Timms, and Adam Gardner, asserting causes of action for retaliation, Labor Code violations, wrongful termination, defamation and PAGA. Plaintiff alleges he complained to Defendants and to the State inspection agency that Defendants were violating the law as to the nurse-to-patient ratio and refused to perform work assignments that violated the ratio. Plaintiff alleges he was terminated as a result.

ANALYSIS

On receipt of a response to requests for admission (“RFAs”) the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an RFA is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.290(a)(2).)   The moving party on a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) must submit “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.”  (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1).)  If the moving party has shown good cause for the RPDs, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections.  (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPDs, set two, nos. 47, 48, 54, and 56 and RFAs, set one, nos. 3-11, 19, 22-56. After several extensions, Defendants provided responses to this discovery on January 17, 2025.

The RPDs seek documents evidencing that Plaintiff’s termination was approved by the Far West Division, documents relating to Plaintiff’s assignments in November and December 2022, out of ratio forms submitted by registered nurses to Defendant West Hills Hospital, and assignment despite objection forms submitted to West Hills Hospital from January 1, 2022 to the present. Defendant produced some documents and generally objected to the requests on relevancy and privacy grounds. These RPDs seek information relating to Defendants’ out of ratio assignment practices. This information is relevant and discoverable. Further response is necessary.

The RFAs request Defendants admit that it violated the law, admit that the entities are joint employers, and admit that Defendants knew Plaintiff complained to CDPH. Defendants objected on the grounds that the requests require Defendants make legal conclusions. Defendants also assert that the motion to compel further RFAs is untimely. The Court declines to order further response to RFAs. The requests improperly seek legal conclusions.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPDs is GRANTED. The Court declines to award sanctions as the parties did not meet and confer following Defendant’s January 17, 2025 responses.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFAs is DENIED.

Hearing Date: February 14, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

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

Moving Party: Defendants West Hills Hospital, HCA Healthcare, Inc., CHC Payroll Agent, Inc., HCA Human Resources, LLC, Los Robles Regional Medical Center, Charlene Timms, and Adam Gardner

Responding Party: Plaintiff Marion Martinez

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 December 18, 2023, Plaintiff Marion Martinez filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendants West Hills Hospital, HCA Healthcare, Inc., CHC Payroll Agent, Inc., HCA Human Resources, LLC, Los Robles Regional Medical Center, Charlene Timms, and Adam Gardner, asserting causes of action for retaliation, Labor Code violations, wrongful termination, defamation and PAGA. Plaintiff alleges he complained to Defendants and to the State inspection agency that Defendants were violating the law as to the nurse-to-patient ratio and refused to perform work assignments that violated the ratio. Plaintiff alleges he was terminated as a result.

EVIDENCE OBJECTIONS

“In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion.” (CCP § 437c(q).) Defendants’ objections to the declaration of Plaintiff are OVERRULED.

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. Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5

Labor Code section 1102.5(b) provides that “[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.”

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claim for whistleblower retaliation fails because Plaintiff did not submit a formal complaint, Defendants had a legitimate business reason for Plaintiff’s termination, and Plaintiff was not required to violate any laws.

Plaintiff alleges he complained to Defendants and to the State inspection agency that Defendants were violating the law as to the nurse-to-patient ratio and refused to perform work assignments that violated the ratio. Plaintiff alleges he was terminated as a result. Defendants argue that these allegations do not amount to whistleblower retaliation. Defendants assert that terminating Plaintiff for refusal to accept work assignments was reasonable because Plaintiff’s actions put hospital patients’ safety at risk. Defendants also assert that there was no whistleblower retaliation because forcing Plaintiff to accept more patients than the patient ratio allows would result in Defendants violating the law, not Plaintiff. These arguments do not defeat Plaintiff’s claim for whistleblower retaliation as a matter of law.

In opposition, Plaintiff presents evidence showing he complained to a California Department of Public Health Officer and his supervisor about Defendants’ understaffing and that he reasonably believed that he was complaining about a violation of law and unsafe working conditions. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whistleblower retaliation.

The motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The motion for summary adjudication of the claim for whistleblower retaliation is DENIED.

B. Violation of Labor Code §§ 6310, 6311

Labor Code § 6310(a)(1) prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee who made “any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, their employer, or their representative.”

Labor Code § 6311 states, “[n]o employee shall be laid off or discharged for refusing to perform work in the performance of which this code, including Section 6400, any occupational safety or health standard, or any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated, where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or their fellow employees.”

Defendants argue that the claims for violation of Labor Code §§ 6310, 6311 fail because Plaintiff complained of safety hazards to patients rather than employees and because Plaintiff did refuse to perform work that violated “any occupational safety or health standard.”

Labor Code §6400 provides that “[e]very employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful for the employees therein.” As discussed, Plaintiff alleges and has presented evidence showing he was terminated for complaining to a California Department of Public Health Officer and his supervisor about Defendants’ understaffing and unsafe working conditions. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to these claims.

The motion for summary adjudication of the claims for violation of Labor Code §§ 6310, 6311 is DENIED.

C. Violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5

Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 prohibits retaliation against an employee who complains about unsafe patient care and conditions. Plaintiff alleges and has presented evidence showing he complained about patient care due to understaffing. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

The motion for summary adjudication of the claim for violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 is DENIED.

D. Wrongful Termination and PAGA

Defendants assert that the claims for wrongful termination and violation of PAGA fail because the underlying claims for retaliation fail. Plaintiff has shown a triable issue of fact as to the underlying claims for retaliation.

The motion for summary adjudication of the claims for wrongful termination and violation of PAGA is DENIED.

E. Punitive Damages

Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages because he does not have evidence that a managing agent of Defendants acted with fraud, oppression, or malice. In opposition, Plaintiff presents evidence showing the termination decision was made by Defendant Timms in consultation with Roque. As CNO, Roque was authorized to set the policy that nurses who refuse out of ratio assignments will be terminated, and Defendants followed that policy. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to punitive damages.

The motion for summary adjudication of the claim for punitive damages is DENIED.

F. Individual Defendants

Defendants Timms and Gardener assert that the first cause of action for violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, the second for violation of Labor Code § 6310, the third for violation of Labor Code § 6311, the fourth for violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5, and the seventh for PAGA violations cannot be asserted against individuals.

The plain language of Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 6310 allow for liability against individuals by prohibiting persons acting on behalf of an employer from retaliating against an employee. Defendants do not dispute this but instead essentially argue the Court should not follow the statutes because individual liability would be unfair. The motion cannot be granted on this basis.

Labor Code § 6311 does not state whether an individual may be held liable, instead stating only that “an employee” may not be discharged for refusing work that would violate safety standards. The statute does not prohibit individual liability as a matter of law.

Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 prohibits “a health facility” from retaliating against an employee for complaining about health and safety standards. Subsection 1278.5(i) defines “health facility” as “the facility's administrative personnel, employees, boards, and committees of the board, and medical staff.” The statute again explicitly provides for individual liability.

Defendants assert the seventh cause of action for PAGA violations fails against them because the first through fourth causes of action do not allow for individual liability. As stated, this is incorrect.

Defendants Timm and Gardener’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

G. Defendants HCA Healthcare, Inc., HCA Human Resources, LLC, CHC Payroll Agent, Inc., Los Robles Regional Medical Center

Defendants HCA Healthcare, Inc., HCA Human Resources, LLC, CHC Payroll Agent, Inc., Los Robles Regional Medical Center move for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims against them on the ground that they were not Plaintiff’s employer.

Defendants assert HCA Healthcare, Inc., HCA Human Resources LLC, CHC Payroll Agent, Inc., and Los Robles Regional Medical Center did not hire Plaintiff, pay Plaintiff’s wages, supervise Plaintiff’s work, provide Plaintiff performance evaluations, train Plaintiff, or maintain Plaintiff’s personnel records. Defendants represent that only West Hills Hospital hired Plaintiff, paid his wages, and was listed on his W-2 statements and paystubs as his employer.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are part of an integrated enterprise and are Plaintiff’s joint employers. Plaintiff presents evidence showing HCA Healthcare Inc, HCA Human Resources Group LLC, CHC Payroll Agent, Inc, and Los Robles Regional Medical Center all retained significant control over Plaintiff as an RN at its facility, West Hills Hospital. Specifically, Plaintiff shows that employees from HCA Healthcare Inc, HCA Human Resources Group LLC and Los Robles Regional Medical Center participated in the termination decision and that CHC Payroll Agent, Inc. issued his paychecks. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether these entities were Plaintiff’s employers.

Defendants HCA Healthcare, Inc., HCA Human Resources, LLC, CHC Payroll Agent, Inc., Los Robles Regional Medical Center’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.