Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV23203, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV23203 Hearing Date: March 24, 2023 Dept: 50
|
RICARDO ARMANDO
NUNEZ, Plaintiff, vs. SAN MARTIN DE
PORRES MEDICAL CLINIC OF SOUTH GATE, INC.,
et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: |
20STCV23203 |
|
Hearing Date: |
March 24, 2023 |
|
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OF PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT |
||
Background
Plaintiff Ricardo Armando Nunez (“Plaintiff”)
filed this action on June 19, 2020 against Defendant San Martin De Porres
Medical Clinic of South Gate, Inc. (“Defendant”).
The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)
was filed on May 17, 2021. The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) age
discrimination, (2) FEHA retaliation, (3) violation of Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and
1198, (4) violation of Labor Code section 2802, (5) violation of Labor Code
sections 226.7 and 512, (6) violation of Labor Code section 226(a), (7)
violation of Labor Code sections 200-204, and (8) violation of Labor Code
section 1194.
Defendant
now moves for an order granting judgment on the pleadings as to the second
cause of action of the SAC. Plaintiff opposes.
Discussion
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s
counsel’s declaration filed in support of the motion provides, “I attempted to
reach Defendant[1] by
writing a detailed letter and following up with opposing counsel regarding my
client’s position as to the defects in the pleadings and the current state.”
(Lopez Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant’s counsel indicates that “[o]pposing counsel
responded by saying he would send me a detailed letter stating their position.
The letter stated that Plaintiff would not dismiss the 2nd cause of action or
amend the complaint because they contend that they have a valid cause of action
for retaliatory termination because the Defendant fired the Plaintiff, because,
the Plaintiff communicated to the Defendant that he was going to seek legal
advice.” (Lopez Decl., ¶ 4.)
The
Court notes that Defendant’s counsel’s declaration does
not demonstrate that the parties met and conferred by telephone or in person
regarding Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
Pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a), “[b]efore filing a motion for judgment on the
pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and
confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading
that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of
determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be
raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. If an amended pleading is
filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who
filed the amended pleading before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings
against the amended pleading.” (Emphasis added.) Such meeting and conferring must be done in good faith with
an effort to try to resolve the issues subject to the motion for judgment on
the pleadings.
In light of the foregoing, the hearing on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is continued to April 14, 2023 at 10 a.m. in
Dept. 50.
Defendant is¿ordered to
meet¿and confer¿with Plaintiff within 10 days of the date of this order.¿If the parties
are unable to resolve the pleading issues¿or if the parties are otherwise
unable to meet and confer in good faith, Defendant is to¿thereafter¿file and
serve¿a declaration setting forth the efforts to meet and confer in compliance with
Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a)(3) within 15 days of this
order.¿
Defendant is ordered to give
notice of this order.
DATED: March 24, 2023 ________________________________
Hon.
Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge,
Los Angeles Superior Court