Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 21STCV07894, Date: 2023-12-13 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.

1. An Order striking or taxing certain costs claimed in Defendant’s October 3, 2023 Memorandum of Costs.

On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff Maurilio Wilcox (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Molina Healthcare, Inc., Zahrah Green and Does 1 through 20 (“Defendants”). The complaint alleged 13 causes of action: (1) Wrongful Termination in Violation of FEHA, (2) Discrimination in Violation of the CFRA, (3) Retaliation in Violation of the CFRA, (4) Interference with, Restraint, and Denial of Medical Leave in Violation the CFRA, (5) FEHA Violations Based Upon Disability Discrimination, (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., (7) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations in Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq., (8) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et seq., (9) FEHA Violations Based Upon Retaliation, (10) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, (11) Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5, (12) Interference with, Restraint, and Denial of Family Leave in Violation of the CFRA, and (13) Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Gov’t Code §§ 12940 et. seq.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants since 2008. In 2019, the Plaintiff sustained injuries while driving and notified the Defendants about the accident and later physical therapy. Later I n 2019, Plaintiff completed the adoption of his child and took leave to bond with the child, which was scheduled to last until March 2020. Prior to this return date, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff to return sooner. The return date was later rescheduled until August 2020, based on the Plaintiff’s back pain. However, Defendants informed the Plaintiff had voluntarily resigned by not returning and later stated that the Plaintiff was terminated on August 17, 2020, due to failure to provide ADA form, which the Plaintiff could not obtain until August 24, 2020.

On May 15, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication, which the court granted in part on August 18, 2023.

On October 12, 2023, Defendants filed a Judgment after Jury Verdict, which the court granted that same date.

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b) provides that civil defendants are entitled as a matter of right to recover their costs [e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 104.) “Government Code section 12965(b) is an express exception to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b) and the former, rather than the latter, therefore governs costs awards in FEHA cases.” (Id. at p. 105.) “Costs that would be awarded as a matter of right to the prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b) are instead awarded in the discretion of the trial court under Government Code section 12965(b).” (Ibid.) In allowing the discretionary award of attorneys’ fees and costs, the Legislature “sought to encourage persons injured by discrimination to seek judicial relief.” (Id. at p. 112.)

“By making a cost award discretionary rather than mandatory, Government Code section 12965(b) expressly excepts FEHA actions from Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b)’s mandate for a cost award to the prevailing party.” (Id. at p. 105.) “A prevailing defendant, however, should not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was objectively without foundation when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.” (Id. at p. 115.) A prevailing party includes “a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032(a)(4).) A court should not conclude “that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his [or her] action must have been unreasonable or without foundation.” (Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1978) 434 U.S. 412, 422.) A meritless case is one that was “groundless or without foundation, rather than simply that the plaintiff has ultimately lost his [or her] case.” (Id. at p. 421.)

This court is unaware of any legal authority which requires a court to rule on evidentiary objections on a motion, except as to a motion for summary motion/adjudication [CCP § 437c (q)] or a special motion to strike (CCP § 425.16 (b)(2); see also, Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 947-949.) As such, this Court respectfully declines to rule on any of these objections.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant is not entitled to costs at all because his claim was not frivolous. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s medical condition and requested reasonable accommodations does not give rise to an actionable claim of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or failure to engage in the interactive process. Defendant additionally argues that Plaintiff’s dismissal of his CFRA claim and failure to raise other causes of action in his motion to strike indicate they were objectively unfounded. Plaintiff replies that Defendant’s evidence supporting its defense does not make Plaintiff’s case frivolous and that all of his claims are intwined with his FEHA claims.

Here, the court declines to award costs to Defendant.[2] First, the court did not make a determination at trial that this matter was frivolous or brought in bad faith. Second, that Plaintiff did not ultimately prevail does not mean his claim was frivolous. (See, e.g., Terris v. County of Santa Barbara (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 551, 559 [“The inability to prove an FEHA element is not equivalent to filing an entirely baseless lawsuit.”])

[1]As such, the Court need not further develop the timeliness objection by Defendant.

[2] The remaining arguments concerning taxing costs are moot.