Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV05318, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05318    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     November 14, 2024               TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Angelique Nevarez v. Dohn Mehrabi, M.D., A Professional Corporation, et al.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV05318           

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Don Mehrabi, M.D., APC, and Donny Mehrabi, an individual.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Angelique Nevarez

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a PAGA action that was filed on March 9, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants required their employees to work outside their stated hours without pay, denied the employees meal and rest breaks, and did not reimburse the employees for business expenses.

Defendants move for summary judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendants move for summary judgment.

Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party can show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and, if not, to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)  “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-82.)

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. (Code Civ Proc. § 437c(p)(2); 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.) The lack of opposition by a plaintiff is not grounds to grant a motion for summary judgment if a defendant cannot meet their initial burden of proof. (See Thatcher v. Lucy Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1087.)

            Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Analysis

            Defendants jointly move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s sole cause of action under the Private Attorney’s General Act. The Complaint pleads a single cause of action premised on (1) failure to pay minimum wage for all work performed; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide uninterrupted meal and rest periods; (4) failure to provide accurate wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records; (5) failure to provide all wages at separation; (6) failure to reimburse business expenses; and (7) waiting time penalties. As these theories are pled under a single cause of action, Defendants’ motion will fail if a triable issue of fact arises as to any theory.

Although Defendants’ moving papers recite the facts which are claimed to be material on this motion and address each theory under which Plaintiff’s claims are brought, Defendants do not apply those facts, with relevant citations, to their arguments as to each theory. Instead, Defendants offer a bare recitation of the facts, then a recitation of the law governing each theory, before asserting that the facts and evidence show, without citations to those facts and evidentiary materials, that Plaintiff’s claims lack merit. Although it appears from a review of the record that evidence may exist which tends to defeat some or all of Plaintiff’s theories, Defendants’ moving papers do not properly marshal that evidence to demonstrate that Plaintiff cannot prevail on her PAGA claim. “Courts are entitled to assistance from counsel, and an invitation to search without guidance is no more useful than a litigant's request to a district court at the summary judgment stage to paw through the assembled discovery material. ‘Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in’ the record. [Citation]." (Albrechtsen v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys. (2002) 309 F.3d 433, 436.)

Defendants have not carried their burden to demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ claims lack merit because they have not properly applied the putative material facts and evidence to each theory asserted in the Complaint. Defendants are therefore not entitled to summary judgment on the papers presented with this motion. This ruling is without prejudice to a future motion for summary judgment which complies with all procedural and statutory requirements.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  November 14, 2024                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.