Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 19STCV46843, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV46843    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 39

Kathleen Eubank v. Barry & Taffy, Inc.

Case No. 19STCV46843

Minute Order

            Plaintiff Kathleen Eubank (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against Barry & Taft, Inc. (“Defendant”) asserting the following causes of action:

            1.         Discrimination under FEHA

            2.         Retaliation under FEHA

            3.         Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation under FEHA

            4.         Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation under FEHA 

            5.         Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process

            6.         Retaliation under Government Code section 12945.2

            7.         Declaratory Judgment

            8.         Wrongful Termination in violation of Public Policy

The Court denied summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s second and eighth causes of action, as well as the third cause of action to the extent it relies on retaliation.  The Court granted summary adjudication of all remaining causes of action, as well as the claim for punitive damages.

            Both parties argue that the Court made errors of law in ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication.  Plaintiff’s counsel asks the Court to reconsider its decision to grant summary adjudication of the sixth cause of action, retaliation, to the extent the claim is predicated upon the California Family Rights Act, as well as the related claim for punitive damages.  Defendant’s counsel asks the Court to reconsider its decision to deny summary adjudication of the second cause of action, for retaliation under FEHA, as well as the related third and eighth causes of action.

            The parties have no standing to seek reconsideration of the Court’s order under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.  However, the Court has inherent authority to reconsider any prior ruling.  (See Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1103.)  Upon review of the parties’ supplemental briefing, as well as the pleading on the motion for summary adjudication and the entire record in this case, the Court accepts the parties’ invitations and elects to reconsider its ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication on its own motion. 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court advances and vacates the trial date.

            2.         The parties waived statutory notice of the Court’s own motion for reconsideration in open court.  Therefore, the Court sets the hearing on the motion for May 16, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. 

            3.         The Court intends to reconsider its entire ruling on the motion for summary adjudication.  The Court will consider the briefs previously filed in this case.  However, the parties may submit any additional briefing on or before May 11, 2023. 

            4.         The Court shall hold a trial setting conference on May 16, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. 

            5.         The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.