Cameron Duhart v. Professional Automotive Relocation Services, Inc., et al

2. CASE NUMBER CASE NAME TYPE OF HEARING CIVRS2410617 Cameron Duhart v. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Professional Automotive Judgment Relocation Services, Inc., et al Tentative Ruling:

The Court rules as follows on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment:

First and Third Causes of Action:

The motion is denied. Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of discrimination. (See Declaration of Brittanie Brown.)1 Defendants fail to introduce any evidence to rebut this showing by producing admissible evidence that it discharged Plaintiff for a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. Furthermore, there are triable issues of fact as to whether or not Plaintiff was subject to discrimination. The balance of the motion is denied. As Defendants moved solely for summary judgment and did not seek, in the alternative, summary adjudication, the Court declines to reach the merits of Defendants’ request for summary judgment as to the remaining causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint. “A motion for summary adjudication cannot be considered by the court unless the party bringing the motion for summary judgment duly gives notice that summary adjudication is being sought as an alternative to summary judgment, in the event summary judgment is denied.” (Motevalli v.

Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 97 114.)

Disputed Material Facts: Defendants’ UMF #5, Issue #1; UMF #3, Issue #2; UMF #1, Issue #3; UMF #2, Issue #3 and UMF #4, Issue #3. Plaintiff’s additional facts #1-9

Evidentiary Basis:

(1) Defendants’ Declaration of Alaina C. Hawley. (2) Plaintiff’s Declaration of Sevana Nourian with attached Exhibits 1-13. (3) Plaintiff’s Declaration of Brittanie Brown.

Plaintiff is directed to give notice of ruling.

1 The Court overrules Defendants’ objections to Exhibit 3 attached to Nourian’s declaration, the subject email from Tesfu, and the declaration of Brown. Defendants’ objections fail to comply with the formatting requirements set forth under Rule 3.1354 of the California Rules of Court. Further, as to Defendants’ objection to Brown’s declaration, Defendants fail to state an evidentiary ground to object to this declaration.