Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2021-00008945-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 28, 2023

12/29/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2021-00008945-CU-WT-CTL GUERRERO VS SFS BEAUTY CA LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 06/30/2023

Defendant M.A.C. Cosmetics, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (ROA 199) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

As to Plaintiff's second cause of action, eighth cause of action, and his claims for retaliation within his first and third causes of action, the motion for summary adjudication is unopposed and granted. (Pltf.

Opp. at p. 8, fn. 5.) Defendant M.A.C. Cosmetics, Inc. ('MAC') asserts it is entitled to summary judgment on all causes of action because it was not an employer of Plaintiff. In determining whether an employment relationship exists, the court evaluates the totality of the circumstances. (St. Myers v. Dignity Health (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 301, 311-312.) Although MAC asserts it was not involved in the hiring, supervision, or termination of Plaintiff's employment at the MAC airport kiosk, its summary judgment motion rests almost entirely on conclusory statements in a brief declaration by one of its former human resources executives, along with excerpts of plaintiff's deposition testimony. (MAC Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 1-37.) Plaintiff has raised triable issues of fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. (Pltf. Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 56-63.) As but one example of many, Plaintiff has rebutted the conclusory statement that MAC was not involved in hiring decisions with deposition testimony from Kymberli Parker (who has stated in a declaration that she was involved in the process of hiring Plaintiff) that MAC was involved in 'most of the decision making as it pertains to hiring,' and that plaintiff 'was a retail employee of M-A-C.' (Pltf. Sep. Stmt. ¶ 1(response), ¶ 57, Pltf. Compendium Exh. A, Parker Depo. at 14:3-15, 105:14-22); Parker Decl., ROA 188, ¶ 7.) As to Plaintiff's seventh cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, the motion is granted. This cause of action is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1382.) Plaintiff alleges his employment was terminated on August 14, 2019. (Compl. ¶ 40.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants SFS Beauty CA LLC, Duty Free Partners, and Kymberli Parker on March 2, 2021. (ROA 1.) Plaintiff substituted MAC for Doe 1 on March 18, 2022. (ROA 27.) Thus, in order for Plaintiff to maintain his seventh cause of action against MAC, his Doe Amendment must relate back to the date of the initially filed Complaint. In determining whether an amendment relates back to the Complaint, '[t]he test is whether, at the time the complaint was filed, the plaintiff was ignorant of the facts giving her a cause of action against the person.' (Hahn v. New York Air Brake LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 895, 899 (quotation marks omitted).) 'The focus is on the facts that the plaintiff knew, not on whether the plaintiff subjectively knew she had a cause of action based on those facts.' (Ibid.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042053  2 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GUERRERO VS SFS BEAUTY CA LLC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00008945-CU-WT-CTL Here, MAC has sufficiently demonstrated Plaintiff was in possession of the relevant facts before the filing of her initial Complaint. (Def. Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 42-44, 47, 48, 50.) Accordingly, Plaintiff was not 'genuinely ignorant' of MAC at the time he filed his Complaint.

MAC's requests that the court take judicial notice of the existence of various documents filed in this action (ROA 206) are granted. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) 'In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need only rule on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion.' (Code Civ.

Proc. § 437c(q).) MAC's evidentiary objections to Parker's testimony (Nos. 28-55) are overruled.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042053  2