Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 19STCV01484, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 19STCV01484 Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: February 23, 2024
Moving Party: Defendant Shippers Transport Express, Inc.
Responding Party: None
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer
The Court considered the moving papers.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for leave to file an amended answer.
Background
This is an employment dispute involving whistleblower retaliation, discrimination, and wrongful termination claims. Plaintiff Peter Guinan filed this action on January 15, 2019. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on February 12, 2020 against defendant Shippers Transport Express, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Shippers”), alleging causes of action for (1) Retaliation (Labor Code § 1102.5); (2) Discrimination (Labor Code § 6310); (3) Violation of Labor Code § 1102; (4) Retaliation (Labor Code § 98.6); (5) Discrimination (Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1101); (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Labor Code § 98.6); (7) Sex Harassment (Gov. Code §§ 12940(a), (j))); (8) Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment (Gov. Code § 12940(k)); (9) Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(h)); (10) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Gov. Code § 12940); and (11) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Tameny).
The FAC alleges the following: Plaintiff worked for Defendant for approximately three and a half years as a semi-truck driver who went on short distance hauls from Defendant’s port in Long Beach to a few locations. (FAC, ¶ 5.) Defendant harassed, discriminated, or retaliated against Plaintiff due to the pro-labor political stances he took in the workplace, his complaints of sexual harassment, and his complaints of various safety issues in the workplace. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-16.) From September 2016 through March 2017, Plaintiff made multiple complaints about sexual harassment by Scott Spindola and at least two other employees. (Id. at ¶ 8.) In October 2016, Plaintiff complained to Defendant about the lack of adequate bathroom facilities and filed a complaint with the Carson Building and Safety Department. (Id. at ¶ 11.) In 2018, Plaintiff complained about various unsafe conditions located Defendant’s Long Beach drop yard. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff filed and assisted others in filing multiple complaints related to unsafe working conditions with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) in Long Breach in 2018. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.) The harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against Plaintiff culminated in termination of his employment on June 14, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
Defendant filed this motion for leave to file an amended answer on January 24, 2024. On January 31, 2024, Defendant filed an amended motion, however this was untimely filed as it was filed 15 court days and not 16 court days prior to the hearing date pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). Additionally, Defendant only filed the notice of the motion and not the accompanying papers. Thus, the Court, in its discretion will only consider the originally filed papers. To date, no opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. (CCP §§ 473, 576.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)
The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered. (See CRC, Rule 3.1324(b)(3)-(4) [separate declaration accompanying the motion must specify when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered and why the
request for amendment was not made earlier].) The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend. (See Duchrow v. Forrest (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377-78.) If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)
Discussion
Defendant moves to amend its answer to allow a complete adjudication at trial or before trial. Defendant seeks to add the following affirmative defenses: (1) Enforce Settlement Agreement/Dismissal/Merger/Bar; (2) Specific Performance; and (3) Waiver/Estoppel/Laches.
The Court does not find that granting this motion will significantly prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, so he does not establish that the amendments will significantly increase the burden of discovery or delay trial, resulting in the loss of critical evidence. Although trial is set for March 4, 2024, which is about a week from the hearing on the instant motion, nothing shows that Defendant was dilatory in seeking these amendments. Any issues as to the validity of the proposed amendments are not properly resolved by this motion, since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. (See Kittredge Sports Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at 1048.) The Court notes that Defendant has not “[s]tated what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located” for the proposed amended pleading pursuant to California Rule of Court, rule 3.1324. However, Defendant has attached a copy of the proposed amended pleading and provided a supporting declaration. Thus, given the liberal policy of resolving actions on the merits, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for leave to amend.
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer to the Complaint. Defendant is ordered to file its First Amended Answer within five days of the date of this ruling.
It is so ordered.
Dated: February 23, 2024
_______________________
ROLF M. TREU
Judge of the Superior Court
Hearing date: February 23, 2024
Moving Party: Defendant Shippers Transport Express, Inc.
Responding Party: None
Motion to Bifurcate or Trifurcate or Hear the Motion to Enforce in Limine
The Court considered the moving papers.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to trifurcate.
Background
This is an employment dispute involving whistleblower retaliation, discrimination, and wrongful termination claims. Plaintiff Peter Guinan filed this action on January 15, 2019. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on February 12, 2020 against defendant Shippers Transport Express, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Shippers”), alleging causes of action for (1) Retaliation (Labor Code § 1102.5); (2) Discrimination (Labor Code § 6310); (3) Violation of Labor Code § 1102; (4) Retaliation (Labor Code § 98.6); (5) Discrimination (Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1101); (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Labor Code § 98.6); (7) Sex Harassment (Gov. Code §§ 12940(a), (j))); (8) Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment (Gov. Code § 12940(k)); (9) Retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(h)); (10) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Gov. Code § 12940); and (11) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Tameny).
The FAC alleges the following: Plaintiff worked for Defendant for approximately three and a half years as a semi-truck driver who went on short distance hauls from Defendant’s port in Long Beach to a few locations. (FAC, ¶ 5.) Defendant harassed, discriminated, or retaliated against Plaintiff due to the pro-labor political stances he took in the workplace, his complaints of sexual harassment, and his complaints of various safety issues in the workplace. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-16.) From September 2016 through March 2017, Plaintiff made multiple complaints about sexual harassment by Scott Spindola and at least two other employees. (Id. at ¶ 8.) In October 2016, Plaintiff complained to Defendant about the lack of adequate bathroom facilities and filed a complaint with the Carson Building and Safety Department. (Id. at ¶ 11.) In 2018, Plaintiff complained about various unsafe conditions located Defendant’s Long Beach drop yard. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff filed and assisted others in filing multiple complaints related to unsafe working conditions with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) in Long Breach in 2018. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.) The harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against Plaintiff culminated in termination of his employment on June 14, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
Defendant filed this motion for leave to file an amended answer on January 24, 2024. On January 31, 2024, Defendant filed an amended motion, however this was untimely filed as it was filed 15 court days and not 16 court days prior to the hearing date pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). Additionally, Defendant only filed the notice of the motion and not the accompanying papers. Thus, the Court, in its discretion will only consider the originally filed papers. To date, no opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
Upon a properly noticed motion of a party made no later than the close of pretrial conference, a court may bifurcate a trial into separate issues when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby. (CCP § 598.) The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, or of any separate issue of any number of causes of action, preserving the right of trial by jury as required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States. (CCP §1048(b).)
Discussion
Defendant seeks to separate the matter into three separate trials: (1) Enforcement of the Settlement Agreement; and then, only if necessary; (2) Liability; and then, only if necessary; (3) Damages.
Defendant argues that the Court should determine the contractual issue first prior to determining liability and damages to preserve the Court’s and the parties’ time and resources. Defendant contends that it will likely take one day or less of a bench trial to determine if the settlement agreement should be enforced, while determining liability and damages will presumably require weeks.
Plaintiff provides no arguments in opposition. The Court otherwise finds no prejudice from trifurcating the trial.
The motion is GRANTED.
It is so ordered.
Dated: February 23, 2024
_______________________
ROLF M. TREU
Judge of the Superior Court
Hearing date: February 23, 2024
Moving Party: Defendant Shippers Transport
Express, Inc.
Responding
Party: None
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement
The Court
considered the moving papers.
The Court GRANTS
Defendant’s motion to enforce settlement agreement.
Background
This
is an employment dispute involving whistleblower retaliation, discrimination,
and wrongful termination claims. Plaintiff Peter Guinan filed this action on
January 15, 2019. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on February
12, 2020 against defendant Shippers Transport Express, Inc. (“Defendant” or
“Shippers”), alleging causes of action for (1) Retaliation (Labor Code §
1102.5); (2) Discrimination (Labor Code § 6310); (3) Violation of Labor Code §
1102; (4) Retaliation (Labor Code § 98.6); (5) Discrimination (Labor Code §§
98.6 and 1101); (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Labor
Code § 98.6); (7) Sex Harassment (Gov. Code §§ 12940(a), (j))); (8) Failure to
Prevent Sexual Harassment (Gov. Code § 12940(k)); (9) Retaliation (Gov. Code §
12940(h)); (10) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Gov. Code §
12940); and (11) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Tameny).
The FAC alleges
the following: Plaintiff worked for Defendant for approximately three and a
half years as a semi-truck driver who went on short distance hauls from
Defendant’s port in Long Beach to a few locations. (FAC, ¶ 5.) Defendant
harassed, discriminated, or retaliated against Plaintiff due to the pro-labor
political stances he took in the workplace, his complaints of sexual
harassment, and his complaints of various safety issues in the workplace. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-16.) From September 2016
through March 2017, Plaintiff made multiple complaints about sexual harassment
by Scott Spindola and at least two other employees. (Id. at ¶ 8.) In
October 2016, Plaintiff complained to Defendant about the lack of adequate
bathroom facilities and filed a complaint with the Carson Building and Safety
Department. (Id. at ¶ 11.) In 2018, Plaintiff complained about various
unsafe conditions located Defendant’s Long Beach drop yard. (Id. at ¶
12.) Plaintiff filed and assisted others in filing multiple complaints related
to unsafe working conditions with the Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (OSHA) in Long Breach in 2018. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.) The harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation against Plaintiff culminated in termination of
his employment on June 14, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
Defendant filed
this motion to enforce the settlement agreement on December 28, 2023. On
January 31, 2024, Defendant filed an amended motion, however this was untimely
filed as it was filed 15 court days and not 16 court days prior to the hearing
date pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). Additionally,
Defendant only filed the notice of the motion and not the accompanying papers.
Thus, the Court, in its discretion will only consider the originally filed
papers. To date, no opposition has been filed.
Legal
Standard
The court has authority to enforce a
settlement agreement if the parties so request. (CCP § 664.6.) CCP § 664.6
states: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the
parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for
settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter
judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties,
the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement
until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”
To be effective, a request for the court
to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement must be made: “1)
during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its
entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by
the parties or orally before the court.” (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97
Cal.App.4th 429, 440.)
Discussion
Defendant seeks
to enforce the settlement allegedly entered into by the parties via the short
form-agreement and seeks dismissal of the pending litigation against it
pursuant to CCP § 664.6.
“If the court
determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should
grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the
settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182-83.) “The
statutory language makes it clear . . . that a party moving for the entry of
judgment pursuant to a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6
need not establish a breach of contract to support relief under the statute.” (Id.
at 1185.)
Defendant establishes
the following: Plaintiff signed and accepted Defendant’s 998 Offer to
Compromise on September 11, 2023. (Michitsch Decl. ¶ 12.) Defendant
countersigned the following day, memorizializing the Settlement in a writing
signed by both parties. (Id. ¶ 13, Exhib. D.) The Offer’s plain terms
indicated that it would be considered a binding and enforceable settlement
under section 664.6. (Id. ¶ 11, Exhib. C.) The materal terms of the
settlement stated that Defendant would pay Plaintiff $36,292 in exchange for his
(1) dismissal of the instant action with prejudice, (2) dismissal of his
currently pending Department of Industrial Relations, Labor Commissioner Office
(“DLSE”) case (case no. WC-CM-604093) with prejudice, and (3) execution of a
long-form general release of all claims. (Id.) Defendant
thereafter sent a long-form release intended to replace the Agreement, but
Plaintiff refused to sign. (Id. ¶ 15.)
Plaintiff
allegedly refused to sign because he believed the offer he signed was only a
tentative deal that he could later reject. (Michitsch Decl. ¶ 15.) However, the
offer clearly states Plaintiff’s dismissal of the case in return for a
payment. Plaintiff provides no arguments
in opposition, thus, he fails to show that the offer was not valid despite the
long-form release not being attached or yet available at the time of signing
the Offer. The Court finds that these facts are sufficient to show that judgment
should be entered pursuant the terms of the Settlement Agreement under CCP §
664.6. Defendant shows the parties agreed, in a signed writing outside the
presence of the court during the pendency of the litigation, for the settlement
of the case and that the court retained jurisdiction and may enter judgment
pursuant to CCP § 664.6. As discussed above, the moving party need not
establish a breach of contract to support relief under CCP § 664.6. (See
Hines, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1185.) It is sufficient that Defendant
demonstrates the parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to CCP §
664.6 and that the court has jurisdiction to enforce the terms therein.
Regardless, Defendant shows that Plaintiff breached the terms of the Settlement
Agreement by failing to dismiss the case. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion
and, therefore, fails to show why the Court should not grant it.
The Court
therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion for enforcement of settlement agreement against
Plaintiff Peter Guinan pursuant to CCP § 664.6.
It is so
ordered.
Dated:
February 23, 2024
_______________________
ROLF M. TREU
Judge of the
Superior Court