Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 20STCV44000, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

An Order granting summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Alternatively, an Order adjudicating that there are no triable issues of material fact as to the following issues:

§ Issue 1: There is no defense to Plaintiff’s misclassification claim alleged in her Ninth cause of action for PAGA penalties because Plaintiff has proved each element of this cause of action, and Defendants cannot show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to this cause of action or defenses thereto.

§ Issue 2: There are no triable issues re: the number of employees against whom Defendants committed misclassification violations during the period of August 31, 2019 to October 29, 2021.

§ Issue 3: There are no triable issues re: the number of pay periods that Defendants committed misclassification violations during the period of August 31, 2019 to October 29, 2021.

§ Issue 4: There are no triable issues re: the amount of penalties that Defendant’s are liable for as a result of their misclassification violations during the period of August 31, 2019 to October 29, 2021.

§ Issue 5: There is no defense to Plaintiff’s wage statement violation claim alleged in her Ninth cause of action for PAGA penalties because Plaintiff has proved each element of this cause of action, and Defendants cannot show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to this cause of action or defenses thereto.

§ Issue 6: There are no triable issues re: the number of employees against whom Defendants committed wage statement violations during the period of August 31, 2019 to October 29, 2021.

§ Issue 7: There are no triable issues re: the number of pay periods that Defendants committed wage statement violations during the period of August 31, 2019 to October 29, 2021.

§ Issue 8: There are no triable issues re: the amount of penalties that Defendant’s are liable for as a result of their wage statement violations during the period of August 31, 2019 to October 29, 2021.

On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff Erica Robinson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants BLT Cleaning Service, Benjamin Taylor dba BLT Cleaning Serivce, Leah Taylor dba BLT Cleaning Service, and Does 1 through 20 (“Defendants”). The complaint alleged ten causes of action: (1) Failure to Indemnify for Necessary Expenditures in Violation of Labor Code § 2802, (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage in Violation of Labor Code §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198, (3) Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198, (4) Failure to Furnish Compliant Wage Statements and Maintain Accurate Pay Records in violation of § 226, 1174 (d), and 1198, (5) Failure to Provide Meal Periods in Violation of §§ 226.7, 512 (a), and 1198, (6) Failure to Provide Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 1198, (7) Failure to Timely Pay Wages in Violation of Labor Code § 204, (8) Willful Failure to Pay Wages in Violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203, (9) Civil Penalties in Violation of Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. and (10) Unfair Competition in Violation of Labor Code §§ 17200, et seq. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants. During her employment, the Plaintiff alleges the was not paid the agreed upon hourly wage and the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff as an independent contractor.

On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication which was DENIED with prejudice.

On March 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Ex-Parte Application to Continue Trial Date, or in the Alternative, for Leave to Have Motion for Summary Adjudication Heard less than 30 days Before Trial, which was GRANTED.

On November 9, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation to Continue Trial and FSC dates, which the court GRANTED.

On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal as the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth Causes of Action and all PAGA claims except for wage statement violations and misclassification.

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively Summary Adjudication (MSJ). On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff submitted evidence in support of her MSJ. On February 20, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition. On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843). In analyzing such motions, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294). Thus, summary judgment or summary adjudication is granted when, after the Court’s consideration of the evidence set forth in the papers and all reasonable inferences accordingly, no triable issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (CCP § 437c(c); Villa v. McFarren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741).

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the party moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element. (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). A motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication must be denied where the moving party's evidence does not prove all material facts, even in the absence of any opposition or where the opposition is weak. (See Leyva v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 462, 475; Salesguevara v. Wyeth Labs., Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 387.

Once the moving party has met the burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show via specific facts that a triable issue of material facts exists as to a cause of action or a defense thereto. (CCP § 437c(o)(2)). When a party cannot establish an essential element or defense, a court must grant a motion for summary adjudication. (CCP § 437c(o)(1)-(2)).

The Court need not rule on the objections since they are not material to this ruling.

Plaintiff contends it is now possible to completely dispose of one or more causes of action, unlike at the previous hearing where the presence of numerous other causes of action contained triable issues of fact.[1] Defendant argues that the court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because it does not comply with CCP § 437c(f)(2). Specifically, Plaintiff has not established newly discovered facts or circumstances or any change in law that allows her to bring the instant motion which, Defendant contends, is substantively identical to her previous MSA that the court denied. Plaintiff replies that Defendant’s opposition is untimely, and that she has adequately established a change in circumstances with the filing of her request for dismissal.

CCP § 437c(f)(2) provides: “a party may not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court, unless that party establishes to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.” (See also, Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 726, 734 (Schachter).)

Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated new facts and circumstances warranting this renewed motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, for summary adjudication. First, the court previously ruled there was a triable issue of fact whether the house keepers were employees or independent contractors. This impacts every issue Plaintiff raises here. Second, Plaintiff relies on the same evidence in this motion as in the 2022 motion. Third, Plaintiff’s request for dismissal did not create new facts or circumstances. (Schachter, supra, at p. 738 [noting that amendment and reorganizing a complaint did not create new circumstances within the meaning of section 437c(f)(2).]) As such, Plaintiff has not demonstrated new facts and circumstances such that the court can proceed on the merits.

Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication in its entirety.[2]

[1] The “new facts and circumstances” are apparently Plaintiff’s dismissal of several causes of action and claims within her PAGA cause of action. Plaintiff does not cite authority supporting this position.

[2] The court declines to analyze the merits of the motion in light of noncompliance with section 437c(f)(2).