MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME LOPEZ TRUJILLO VS CVME2503862 MOTIONS TO COMPEL PHOENIX TEMECULA, INC. Tentative Ruling: Hearing Required.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME WARD VS THE METROPOLITAN WATER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN ON 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT CALIFORNIA Tentative Ruling: Grant the motion for summary judgment. Metropolitan met its initial burden and Plaintiff fails to raise any triable issues of material facts. As to Metropolitan’s evidentiary objections: Overrule: 1-3, 6, 7, 10 and Sustain: 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-17.
Metropolitan has met its initial burden of producing evidence to show that it did in fact participate in the interactive process in good faith and did in fact offer the use of the face shield as a form of reasonable accommodation of Plaintiff’s perceived disability. Once the burden shifted, Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue as to whether Metropolitan’s failure to accommodate. Plaintiff shows that he offered an alternative solution to wear a mask and face shield sometimes after raising safety concerns in using a face shield.
However, such fact does not raise a triable issue because any reasonable accommodation is sufficient to meet the employer’s obligation under FEHA, and “the employer need not adopt the most reasonable accommodation, nor must the employer accept the remedy preferred by the employee.” (Soldinger v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 345, 370, citing Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook (1986) 479 U.S. 60, 68.)
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVSW2401961 WETTELAND VS GREEN MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling: Adopt the Court’s prior Tentative Ruling and Grant the motion for summary judgment.
At the third hearing on this motion, Plaintiffs claimed, for the first time, that Kaiser’s separate statement is deficient. Kaiser persuasively points out that this is a “new issue” and that arguments raised for the first time at oral argument are not considered. (Sosa v. CashCall, Inc. (2010) 49 Cal.App.5th 42, 49 fn 5; see also, Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc. v. Happening House Ventures (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1554
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Some cases follow the “Golden Rule” of summary judgment and refuse to consider evidence not listed in the separate statement. (Weil & Brown, CPG: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (TRG 2026) § 10:95.4.) However, other cases hold that whether to consider evidence outside the separate statement rests with the trial court’s discretion. (Ibid.) Notably, CCP § 437c(c) requires the court to consider “all of the evidence set forth in the papers” including facts stated in declarations, exhibits, points and authorities or other papers presented to the court. (Ibid.) This is what this Court has done. The Court is not inclined to change this approach at this late date. To do so may be considered an abuse of discretion since the Court has already considered all evidence presented by both sides. Moreover, the Kaiser Defendants correctly assert that the