Motion for Summary Judgment; Motion for Summary Adjudication
34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 02/14/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53
will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Pacific Gas & Electrics motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication is continued to May 29, 2024, pursuant to CCP § 437c(h).
In this employment action, Plaintiff Angela Ramirez alleges causes of action for violation of the California Equal Pay Act, and FEHA causes of action for gender and race discrimination, and retaliation. Defendant moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, on various grounds including that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case for her FEHA cause of action, that Defendants stated reasons for any adverse action were legitimate and nondiscriminatory, and that the wage differential is based on bona fide facts other than sex.
Plaintiff filed an opposition which only asks that the motion be denied or continued pursuant to CCP § 437c(h). No trial date is set.
A request for a continuance must be accompanied by affidavits showing that facts justifying an opposition may exist but cannot then be presented. (CCP § 437c(h).) The affiant need not show evidence does exist, only that it may. This leaves little room for doubt that such continuances are to be liberally granted. (Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 634 [quoting Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 395.) CCP § 437c
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?”
Rodeffer (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 546, 556.) If a party requesting a continuance submits an affidavit demonstrating that facts essential to justify opposition exist, the courts discretion to deny a continuance because that party was not diligent in discovering the facts earlier is strictly limited. (Bahl, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at 398 [the issue of discovery diligence is not mentioned in section 437c(h), which raises obvious doubts about its relevance.]) However, there is a split of authority regarding whether a party seeking a request for a continuance must demonstrate diligence. (Braganza v.
Albertsons, LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 144, 155-156.) Further, even where the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h) have not been met, a continuance is within the Courts discretion so long as good cause is shown. (Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 716.)
Here, the Court will grant the request to continue pursuant to CCP § 437c(h). Plaintiffs counsels declaration is sufficient to demonstrate that facts justifying an opposition may exist but cannot yet be presented. Plaintiffs counsel declares that Plaintiff has noticed the depositions of the individuals who submitted declarations in support of the instant
34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 02/14/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 53
motion. (Patten Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs counsel declares that the deposition testimony of these individuals, which include former supervisors, could lead to evidence relevant to Plaintiffs prima facie case and pretext. Counsel indicates that deposition questioning regarding failing to pay Plaintiff at the same level for similar work as Caucasian male counterparts, and also rating her performance lower that the Caucasian male counterparts is essential to showing unlawful animus. (Id. ¶¶ 6-9.) Counsel also declares that Eric Hecker and Bryan Imm have relevant information regarding the pay disparity and Plaintiffs performance. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 11.)
Plaintiffs counsel also seeks to question Mr. Imm regarding his denials of making disparaging comments regarding Latinas. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff also indicates that various individuals she seeks to depose heard Mr. Imm make disparaging references regarding Plaintiffs race. (Id. ¶ 13.) Counsels declaration contains additional statements regarding other individuals Plaintiff seeks to depose. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 15.) Plaintiffs counsel declares that without deposing the individuals Plaintiff cannot properly respond to the motion. (Id. ¶ 16.)
The Court is familiar with Plaintiffs failure to respond to Defendants discovery in this case and the resulting orders compelling her to do so and sanctions for failing to comply with the orders, including most recently, the Courts order of February 8, 2024. In addition, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff could have conducted the requested discovery earlier, and provides no reason why she did not do so. The Court is also aware of Defendant's reply indicating that no actual deposition notices were attached to Plaintiff's counsel's declaration.
Nevertheless, a continuance is appropriate pursuant to CCP § 437c(h). Further, even if diligence were a requirement under CCP § 437c(h), the Court nevertheless has good cause to continue the motion. Good cause exists here to allow Plaintiff the time to take depositions of percipient witnesses. If the Court did not continue the matter Defendants motion for summary judgment would remain unopposed given the lack of evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in opposition and would likely be granted. The policy of deciding cases on the merits counsels against that result.
Further, no trial date has been set and thus there is no trial date that will be impacted by the continuance of this motion.
The Court will continue the instant motion to May 29, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in this department. Any supplemental opposition and reply are to be filed pursuant to the timelines of CCP 437c(b) based on the continued hearing date.
If the continued May 29, 2024, hearing date is not convenient for the parties, counsel shall meet and confer to select a later date. Counsel shall inform the clerk of any later date no later than 4:00 p.m. on February 13, 2024.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.