Motion for Summary Judgment; Motion for Summary Adjudication
202 Roos vs. Defendant Procolor Collision USA LLC’s motion for Procolor summary judgment as to the complaint filed by Collision USA Plaintiff Sara Roos is DENIED.
Defendant Procolor Collision USA LLC’s motion for summary adjudication as to the complaint filed by Plaintiff Sara Roos is GRANTED for the 7 th, 8th and 9th causes of action and the claim for punitive damages. The motion is DENIED as to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th and 11th causes of action.
Plaintiff’s Objections To Format of Moving Papers: The plaintiff correctly points out that the motion exceeds the page length allowed under Rule 3.1113(d). However, the Court will exercise its discretion and consider the entire motion. The Court will also consider the Separate Statement despite the minor noted differences with the notice of motion.
Plaintiff’s Objections To Evidence: Objection No. 1 is OVERRULED; Objection Nos. 11 and 12 are SUSTAINED (foundation, opinion); the Court DECLINES to rule on the remaining objections as not being material to the ruling on this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(q).)
1st Cause of Action: Sexual Harassment – Hostile Work Environment (Cal Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.): Defendant fails to meet its burden on “severe or pervasive” and “appropriate corrective action.” Question of fact as to whether four incidents severe or pervasive. Question of fact as to whether investigation sufficient when excluding witness Carlson. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 825, 851 [burden]; CACI No. 2521A [elements]; Govt. Code §§12940(j)(1), 12923) Motion is DENIED as to 1st cause of action.
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?”
2nd Cause of Action: Discrimination Based on Sex/Gender (Cal Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.): Defendant fails to meet its burden on lack of discriminatory motive or nondiscriminatory reason. There is a lack of foundation and support for Flynn’s statement that termination was due to “restructuring.” (Govt. Code §§12940; Martin v. Bd. of Trs. of California State Univ. (2023) 97 Cal. App. 5th 149, 161–62 [elements and burden].) Motion is DENIED as to 2nd cause of action.
3rd Cause of Action: Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment (Cal Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.): This cause of action is derivative of the first two causes of action. “[C]ourts have required a finding of actual discrimination or harassment under FEHA before a plaintiff may prevail under section 12940, subdivision (k).” (Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1314) Since the first two causes of action have not been disposed of, this cause of action fails. Motion is DENIED as to 3rd cause of action.
4th Cause of Action: Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy (Cal Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.): Defendant fails to meet burden of showing no causal link between plaintiff’s report of harassment and her termination. Disputed question of fact as to whether reporting harassment or “restructuring” was basis for termination. (CACI No. 4603 [elements].) Motion is DENIED as to 4th cause of action.
5th Cause of Action: Retaliation for Disclosure of Unlawful Acts (Cal Lab. Code §§ 1102.5): Defendant fails to meet burden of showing no causal link between report of harassment and termination or that reporting was not a contributing factor to termination. (CACI No. 4603
[elements].) Motion is DENIED as to 5th cause of action.
6th Cause of Action: Wrongful Termination (Constructive Discharge) in Violation of Public Policy: Defendant fails to meet burden to show termination was not “motivating reason for plaintiff’s discharge.” (CACI No. 2430 [elements]) Motion is DENIED as to 6th cause of action.
7th Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendant met its initial burden on showing conduct not “extreme and outrageous” and no “severe emotional distress.” (CACI 1602 [elements].) Plaintiff failed to meet her shifted burden to “show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2).) The motion is GRANTED as to the 7th cause of action.
8th Cause of Action: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendant argues no duty owed outside of FEHA claims, that defendant acted negligently and that plaintiff did not suffer serious emotional distress. In opposition, plaintiff does not address the challenge to the Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress cause of action. Instead, plaintiff only addresses the Negligent Supervision cause of action. Failing to challenge a contention in a brief results in the concession of that argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566 [“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue”].) The motion is GRANTED as to the 8th cause of action.
9th Cause of Action: Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.): In her opposition, plaintiff did not oppose the defendant’s challenge to the 9th cause of action. Failing to challenge a contention in a brief
results in the concession of that argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566) The motion is GRANTED as to the 9th cause of action.
10th Cause of Action: Negligent Supervision AND 11th Cause of Action: Negligent Hiring and Retention: Defendant failed to meet its burden to show one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established. Question of fact as to sufficiency of investigation and response to complaint of harassment. No evidence showing preemployment fitness of Bridges. (CACI 426 [elements]; Code Civ. Proc. 437c(p)[burden]) The motion is DENIED as to the 10th cause of action.
Punitive Damages: In plaintiff’s opposition, she does not dispute defendant’s challenge to punitive damages. Failing to challenge a contention in a brief results in the concession of that argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566) Further, Defendant met its burden to show Bridges not managing agent. (Civ. Code §3294; Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123, 164; Flynn Decl. ¶3) Plaintiff has not met her shifted burden. (Code Civ. Proc. 437c(p)(2).) The motion is GRANTED as to punitive damages.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
204 Lara vs. Wraith, The motion to vacate by Defendants Wraith LP and LP Wraith 21, LLC is GRANTED.
The default entered on January 28, 2026 as to Wraith, LP (ROA 31) and the default entered on January 28, 2026 as to Wraith, LLC (ROA 30) are VACATED. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b) [“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative