Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: BC718443, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC718443    Hearing Date: September 6, 2022    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 6, 2022                 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Marco Ortiz v. Related, et al.

CASE NO.:                 BC718443           

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Related Management Company, LP, and The Related Companies of California, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Notice of Non-Opposition filed by Plaintiff on August 23, 2022

CASE HISTORY:

·         08/22/18: Complaint filed.

·         07/15/20: Arbitration award confirmed.

·         09/11/20: Notice of Appeal filed.

·         04/28/22: Remittitur issued.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            Plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations, as well as disability discrimination and harassment.

Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s sole remaining cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

            Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s fourteenth and sole remaining cause of action for civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

//

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 move for summary judgment on the fourteenth and sole remaining cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA on the grounds that, because of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s underlying claims of Labor Code violations in arbitration, Plaintiff can no longer maintain a cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA.

            PAGA creates a private right of action for an “aggrieved employee.” (Lab. Code § 2699(a).) An aggrieved employee is a person “employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.” (Lab. Code § 2699(c).) PAGA claims are derivative, and only survive so long as the underlying claims are valid. (See, e.g, Price v. Starbucks Corp. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1147 [affirming summary judgment dismissing a PAGA claim because the underlying causes of action failed as a matter of law].)

            On March 4, 2019, this Court ordered the parties to binding arbitration of all of Plaintiff’s causes of action except for Plaintiff’s PAGA claim, pursuant to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Defendant’s Exh. A-2.) On February 3, 2020, the arbitrator entered a Final Arbitration Award granting summary adjudication to Defendants on all of Plaintiff’s claims. (Declaration of Lindsay E. Hutner ISO Mot. Exh. B-2.) On July 15, 2020, this Court granted Defendants’ petition to confirm the arbitration award and denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. (July 15, 2020 Minute Order.) Plaintiff appealed the Court’s ruling denying the motion to vacate the arbitration award on September 11, 2020.  (September 11, 2020 Notice of Appeal.) On April 28, 2022, the Court of Appeal entered a Remittitur and Order denying Plaintiff’s appeal. (April 28 2022 Remittitur.)

            As Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-opposition which concedes that, if Plaintiff’s other claims fail, Plaintiff can no longer maintain a PAGA action, the Court finds that Defendants have established that Plaintiff cannot prevail on his remaining claim for civil penalties under PAGA. Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2022                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.