Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV18952, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV18952 Hearing Date: May 29, 2025 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: May
30, 2025
CASE NAME: Tyrese
Gibson, et al. v. The Home Depot, Inc.
CASE NO.: 23STCV18952
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMAR ADJUDICATION
MOVING PARTY: Defendant
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (erroneously sued as The Home Depot, Inc.)
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1.
An Order granting summary judgment in Defendant’s
favor as to Plaintiff Eric Mora’s Complaint; or
2.
Orders granting summary adjudication in
Defendant’s favor as to Plaintiff Eric Mora’s First and Second Causes of
Action.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On August 9, 2023, Plaintiffs Tyrese Gibson, Eric Mora, and
Manuel Hernandez (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendant The Home
Depot, Inc. (Defendant) with two causes of action for: (1) Violation of Unruh
Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §§ 51, 52; and (2) Negligent Hiring, Supervision
and/or Retention.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs experienced
discriminatory mistreatment and consumer racial profiling on February 11, 2023
while shopping at Defendant’s West Hills, California store. Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that one of Defendant’s cashiers delayed completing a
transaction and then refused to complete that transaction.
On September 28, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer.
On January 27, 2025, Defendant filed a Request for Dismissal
of the Complaint as to Plaintiff Tyrese Gibson that was signed by Plaintiff
Gibson in pro per.
On January 28, 2025, Defendant filed a Request for Dismissal
of the Complaint as to Plaintiff Manuel Hernandez that was signed by Plaintiff
Hernandez in pro per.
On February 25, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion for
summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication. Oppositions were due
on or before May 12, 2025 (accounting for weekend days). As of May 27, 2025,
the court has not received any opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Motion
for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing
evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely
v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative
showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the
opposing party files an opposition. (Villa
v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)
When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment,
he/she must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action
cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of
action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When a Plaintiff or
Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible
evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must
cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be
strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log
Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)
The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under
no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets
his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder
v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the
initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to
show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the
weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The
opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable
issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and
rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster
v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.) As to any alternative request for
summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set
forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden-shifting rules apply but
the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by
statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary
adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of
action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)
Request
for Judicial Notice
The court GRANTS Defendant’s request for
judicial notice.
ANALYSIS:
First Cause of
Action – Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civ. Code §§ 51, 52
Defendant contends that summary judgment is warranted
because there are undisputed facts that Plaintiff lacks standing since he was
never denied anything. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) provides that “all
persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter
what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability,
or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations,
advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments
of every kind whatsoever.” (Civil Code, § 51, subd. (b).)
“A plaintiff can recover under the Unruh Civil Rights Act
on¿two alternate theories: (1) a
violation of the ADA (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (f)); or (2) denial of access to a
business establishment based on intentional discrimination. [Citations.]”
(Martinez v. San Diego County Credit
Union¿(2020) 50¿Cal.App.5th 1048, 1059.)¿(Emphasis added.)
Intentional discrimination, however, need not be proved to obtain damages under
the Unruh Civil Rights Act when the plaintiff establishes a violation of the
ADA. (Munson v. Del Taco, Inc.,
supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 665.)
As a threshold matter, the court notes that the ADA is not
at issue in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s recovery under the Unruh Civil
Rights Act concerns denial of access to a business establishment based on
intentional discrimination. (Martinez,
supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 1059.)
Here, Defendant met its initial burden that there are no
triable issues of fact that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a claim for
violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. First, Plaintiff did not make the
purchase – dismissed Plaintiffs Gibson and Hernandez did. (Defendant’s Separate
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SSUMF) Nos. 18, 22, 23.) Second,
Plaintiff was not denied services because Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Gibson did
purchase everything on their shopping list that day. (SSUMF No. 24.) The burden shifts, however, Plaintiff
did not file an opposition.
Therefore, summary judgment on the First Cause of Action
is warranted.
Second Cause of
Action – Negligent Hiring, Supervision and/or Retention
Defendant contends that summary judgment is warranted
because there are undisputed facts that Defendant had no prior notice that Ms.
Gaxiola misunderstood and/or misapplied the ID verification policy until after
her interaction with Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
An employer may be liable to a third person for negligent
hiring or retention when the employer hired an employee who was incompetent or
unfit, the employer had reason to believe an undue risk of harm would exist
because of the employment, and harm occurred. (Federico v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1207,
1213-1214.) “Liability for negligent supervision and/or retention of an
employee is one of direct liability for negligence, not vicarious
liability.” (Delfino v. Agilent
Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 815.) “To establish
negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show that a person in a supervisory
position over the actor had knowledge of the actor’s propensity to do the bad
act.” (Z.V. County of Riverside
(2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 889, 903 .)
Here, Defendant met its initial burden that there are no
triable issues of fact that it lacked prior knowledge of Ms. Gaxiola’s
propensity to do the bad act. Specifically, Defendant did not know that Ms.
Gaxiola requested ID for large credit card purchases, in contravention to their
policy, before February 11, 2023. (SSUMF Nos. 25-28.) The burden shifts, however, Plaintiff did not
file an opposition.
Therefore, summary judgment on the Second Cause of Action
is warranted.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion
for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 30, 2025 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court