Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 21STCV20009, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Gabriel Ceja worked for Defendant California Institute of Technology since 2002. Over the years, Plaintiff alleges he suffered multiple workplace injuries and that Defendant failed to offer accommodations, or, placed him in positions that violated his accommodations. While working as the one in charge of the eyewash stations on campus, Plaintiff alleges he was retaliated against after raising concerns that certain eyewash stations did not comply with applicable regulations. These factors resulted in Plaintiff’s allegedly constructive termination on February 23, 2021.

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843. In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294. Thus, summary judgment is granted when, after the Court’s consideration of the evidence set forth in the papers and all reasonable inferences accordingly, no triable issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c); Villa v. McFarren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741.

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. Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520. 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 defendant has met its burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if it demonstrates the absence of any single essential element of plaintiff’s case or a complete defense to plaintiff’s action. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(2); Bacon v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 854, 858. Once the defendant moving party has met the burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show via specific facts that a triable issue of material facts exists as to a cause of action or a defense thereto. § 437c(o)(2).

When ruling on a motion for summary adjudication in the context of a discrimination claim, “the trial court will be called upon to decide if the plaintiff has met his or her burden of establishing a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. If the employer presents admissible evidence either that one or more of plaintiff's prima facie elements is lacking, or that the adverse employment action was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors, the employer will be entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff produces admissible evidence which raises a triable issue of fact material to the defendant's showing. (Moore v. Regents of Univ. of California (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 216, 236 [emphasis in original].) “Whether judgment as a matter of law is appropriate in any particular case will depend on a number of factors. These include the strength of the plaintiff's prima facie case, the probative value of the proof that the employer's explanation is false, and any other evidence that supports the employer's case....[Citation.] However, ‘many employment cases present issues of intent, ... motive, and hostile working environment, issues not determinable on paper. Such cases ... are rarely appropriate for disposition on summary judgment, however liberalized [summary judgment standards may] be.” (Id. [emphasis in original].)

The opposition to a motion for summary judgment or adjudication must consist of (1) a memorandum in opposition, (2) a separate statement in opposition, and (3) evidence in opposition. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(e).) The separate statement in opposition “must unequivocally state whether [each] fact is ‘disputed’ or ‘undisputed.’” (Id., Rule 3.1350(f)(2).)

Separate statements “should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.” (Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal. App. 5th 865, 875.) “Material facts” are “facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion.” (Id.)

“The point of the separate statement is not to craft a narrative, but to be a concise list of the material facts and the evidence that supports them.” Its purpose is to “provide[] a convenient and expeditious vehicle permitting the trial court to hone in on the truly disputed facts.” (Id.) This applies to “both sides of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication.” (Id.)

Here, it is difficult, if not impossible, for this court “to focus on whether [the material] facts are truly undisputed” when Plaintiff’s opposing separate statement spans nearly 100-pages and includes 320 additional “undisputed material facts” without any indication of which cause of action or “issue” they correspond with. [FN 1]

For example, Plaintiff’s additional undisputed fact number 267 states: “Ceja emailed this work status report to Caltech’s HR.” (SSDMF 267.) This is not a standalone material fact, but “merely background information that has no relevance to any cause of action or defense.” (Beltran, supra, 97 Cal. App. 5th at 875.) Indeed, it appears that most of Plaintiff’s additional facts simply rehash nearly each and every paragraph of Plaintiff’s declaration in order. (See Ceja Decl, generally.)

Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s undisputed material facts don’t fare much better. For example, Defendant’s undisputed material fact number 23 states: “On August 2, 2017, Caltech’s Leave Unit informed Raul Turcios of Plaintiff’s restrictions.” (SSUMF 23.) To this seemingly straightforward fact, Plaintiff responds:

Disputed. [Caltech pattern and practice of failing to engage in interactive process and rubber stamping management “unable to accommodate” decision] Ceja Decl., ¶76; Caltech Appendix, Ex. “37” (10/5/17 email, Cal bates no. 744), Ex. “65” (8/2/19 email, Cal bates no. 694); Ex. “93” (8/5/20 email, Cal bates no. 1415), (7/21/20 email, Cal bates no. 1416); Ex. “100” (9/15/20 email, Cal bates no. 1075), (9/1/20 email, Cal bates no. 1077); Ex. “104 (11/2/20 email, Cal bates no. 1444); Parks Decl., Ex. “D” [Harris Depo.], p. 127:8-128:10; Parks Decl., Ex. “E” [Harris Depo., p. 265:4-11, 274:12-275:10, 283:7-285:18, 319:10-322:19, 323:5-25, 330:6-335:9; Parks Decl., Ex. “L”, [Ramos Depo.], p. 48:2-49:14.)

Disputed. [Turcios intent to unreasonably deny workplace accommodations] Ceja Decl., ¶11-44, Ex. “D”, “F”; Parks Decl., Ex. “B” [Scott Depo.], p. 34:3-36:18, 39:5-20, 42:2-43:11, 47:15-48:5; 51:2-19; Parks Decl., Ex. “J” [Arteaga Depo.], p. 11:15-12:7, 13:16-14:18, 15:2-5, 20:3-16; Parks Decl., Ex. “P” [Turcios Depo]. p. 118:3-121:16.

It is impossible to discern from these responses—and the long string-cite of evidence with them—why or how these facts are truly disputed? The responses are simply not “responsive,” as they do not “directly address the fact[s] stated.” (Beltran, supra, 97 Cal. App. 5th at 875.) If a “fact is not in dispute, the opposing party must so admit. It is completely unhelpful to evade the stated fact in an attempt to create a dispute where none exists.” (Id.)

The Court of Appeal has instructed trial court to “not hesitate to disregard attempts to game the system by the opposing party claiming facts are ‘disputed’ when the uncontroverted evidence clearly shows otherwise.” (Id. at 876; see also Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 243, 290 [stating that trial courts have the inherent power to strike proposed undisputed facts that “impede rather than aid an orderly determination whether the case presents triable material issues of fact.”].) When a moving party makes the required prima facie showing, the opposing party's failure to comply with this requirement may, in the court's discretion, constitute a sufficient ground for granting the motion. (CCP § 437c(b)(3); see Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 554, 568.)

This court understands that preparing a separate statement is time consuming and tedious. It is, however, “an indispensable part of the summary judgment or adjudication process.” (Whitehead v. Habig (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 896, 902.) “Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for ... summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed.” (Id.)

A party opposing summary judgment “does not have an automatic right for a second chance to prepare a responsive separate statement.” (Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 554, 576.) Whether a continuance should be granted to give the opposing party an opportunity to remedy the defects rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Id.)

FN 1 - Additionally, Plaintiff commits a common error in its opposition papers by labeling part of his response to the moving party’s separate statement as “Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Additional Material Facts (”PSSAMF”). It would seem that the Plaintiff may intend that some of these facts are actually “disputed,” as opposed to “undisputed.” Typically, parties who oppose summary judgment motions note that there are “additional disputed material facts” which defeat such a motion. See, CCP § 437c (b) (3) [“The opposition papers shall include a separate statement . . . The statement shall also set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts the opposing party contends are disputed.”] (Emphasis added.) In this case, the court is unclear as to which of these 320 additional facts are disputed or not or are even actually “material.” It is further noted that Plaintiff lists these as ‘UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS” at the top of every single page in its chart.