McInteer v. Ashley Distribution Servs., Ltd.

• Decision Date: 19 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. EDCV 13–0268 JGB DTBx.,EDCV 13–0268 JGB DTBx.
• Citation: 40 F.Supp.3d 1269
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: Michael McINTEER, Plaintiff, v. ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LTD. ; Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., Defendants.

40 F.Supp.3d 1269

Michael McINTEER, Plaintiff
v.
ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LTD. ; Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., Defendants.

No. EDCV 13–0268 JGB DTBx.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed Aug. 19, 2014.

40 F.Supp.3d 1272

Rosemary Amezcua—Moll Amezcua—Moll and Associates PC Orange, CA, for Plaintiff.

Geoffrey D. Deboskey, Heidi Catherine Larson Howell, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JESUS G. BERNAL, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment or alternatively,

40 F.Supp.3d 1273

partial summary judgment. (“Motion,” Doc. No. 19.) After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, and the arguments presented at the June 23, 2014 hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff Michael McInteer (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in state court against Defendants Ashley Distribution Services, Ltd. and Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or “Ashley”). (“Compl.,” Not. of Removal, Exh. B, Doc. No. 1.) The Complaint states twelve claims for relief for: (1) wrongful termination in violation of Cal. Gov't Code § 12941 ; (2) wrongful termination in violation of Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(a) ; (3) violation of Cal. Lab.Code § 132(a) ; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; (5) waiting time penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab.Code § 558 ; (6) penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab.Code § 558 ; (7) interest on unpaid overtime, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Lab.Code §§ 218.5, 218.6, and 1194 ; (8) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 ; (9) violation of Cal. Lab.Code §§ 226, 226.3 ; (1 0) defamation; (11) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (12) injunctive relief.¹ (Compl.) The claims pertain to Defendants' termination of Plaintiff's employment as a Transportation Care Manager on December 23, 2011. Defendants removed the action to this Court on February 11, 2013. (Not. of Removal.)

On May 5, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (“Motion,” Doc. No. 19.) In support of the Motion, Defendants attached:

• Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Motion);

• Statement of Undisputed Facts (“SUF,” Doc. No. 19–2);

• Declaration of Tom Qualman (“Qualman Decl.,” Doc. No. 19–3, Tab 1), attaching Exhibits A through D;²

• Declaration of Nancy Evanson (“Evanson Decl.,” Doc. No. 19–3, Tab 2), attaching Exhibits E through K;

• Declaration of Manual Martinez (“Martinez Decl.,” Doc. No. 19–3, Tab 3);

• Declaration of Blaire H. Baily (“Baily Decl.,” Doc. No. 19–3, Tab 4), attaching exhibits L through N;

• Declaration of John Leighty (“Leighty Decl.,” Doc. No. 19–3, Tab 5), attaching Exhibit O; and

• Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN,” Doc. No. 20) attaching Exhibit N.

Plaintiff's opposition was due on May 12, 2014. See L.R. 7–9. On May 30, 2014, three days before the hearing on the Motion, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file his opposition (Doc. No. 21), which Defendants opposed (Doc. No. 22). The Court held a hearing on the request for extension and granted Plaintiff's motion. (Doc. Nos. 27, 31.) The Court reset the hearing on summary judgment for June 23, 2014. (Doc. No. 27.)

Plaintiff filed his late opposition on June 2, 2014. (“Opp'n,” Doc. No. 23.) In support thereof, Plaintiff attached:

40 F.Supp.3d 1274

• Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Fact (“SGI,” Doc. No. 23–4);

• Objections to Evidence (“Obj.,” Doc. No. 23–2);

• Declaration of Michael McInteer (“McInteer Decl.,” Doc. No. 23–3, Tab 1), attaching Exhibit A; and

• Declaration of Sarah Nowels (“Nowels Decl.,” Doc. No. 23–3, Tab 2), attaching as Exhibit B excerpts of the deposition of Michael McInteer.

On June 9, 2014, Defendants replied (“Reply,” Doc. No. 28) and attached:

• Response to Plaintiff's SGI (“Resp.,” Doc. No. 29);

• Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Evidence (“Resp. Obj.,” Doc. No. 30); and

• Declaration of Heidi Larson Howell (“Howell Decl.,” Doc. No. 28–1) attaching Exhibit A.

I. LEGAL STANDARD³

Summary judgment is appropriate if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A fact is material when it affects the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir.1997).

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. This burden may be satisfied by either (1) presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the non-moving party's case; or (2) showing that the non-moving party has failed to sufficiently establish an essential element to the non-moving party's case. Id. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Where the party moving for summary judgment does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it may show that no genuine issue of material fact exists by demonstrating that “there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case.” Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

However, where the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party must present compelling evidence in order to obtain summary judgment in its favor. United States v. One Residential Property at 8110 E. Mohave, 229 F.Supp.2d 1046, 1047 (S.D.Cal.2002) (citing Torres Vargas v. Santiago Cummings, 149 F.3d 29, 35 (1st Cir.1998) (“The party who has the burden of proof on a dispositive issue cannot attain summary judgment unless the evidence that he provides on that issue is conclusive.”)). Failure to meet this burden results in denial of the motion and the Court need not consider the non-moving party's evidence. One Residential Property at 8110 E. Mohave, 229 F.Supp.2d at 1048.

Once the moving party meets the requirements of Rule 56, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion, who “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The non-moving party does not meet this burden by showing “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”

40 F.Supp.3d 1275

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Genuine factual issues must exist that “can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505. When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the Court must examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The Court cannot engage in credibility determinations, weighing of evidence, or drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts; these functions are for the jury. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

II. FACTS

A. Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff filed evidentiary objections to the evidence Defendants submitted in support of their Motion. (Obj.) Over half of the objections are aimed at Defendants' purported misstatements of the evidence as represented in their SUF. (See Obj. ¶¶ 10–12, 16, 27, 30–31, 34, 36, 59–60, 72–73, 87–89.) “Plaintiff's ‘evidentiary objections' to Defendants' separate statements of undisputed facts are not considered because such objections should be directed at the evidence supporting those statements.” Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v. Capstone Orthopedic, Inc., 556 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1126 (E.D.Cal.2008) ; Contract Associates Office Interiors, Inc. v. Ruiter, No. CIV 07–0334 WBS PAN, 2008 WL 2916383, at *5 (E.D.Cal. July 28, 2008) (“[T]he court will not consider Contract Associates' objections to SSUF Nos. 60, 64, and 75 because these objections are aimed only at Ruiter's characterization and purported misstatement of the evidence—as represented in her SSUF—rather than the actual underlying evidence.”). In ruling on summary judgment, the Court considers the evidence submitted in support of and opposition to the Motion, it does not rely on the parties' characterization of the evidence. See Dalton v. Straumann Co. USA Inc., No. C–99–4579 VRW, 2001 WL 590038, at *4 (N.D.Cal. May 18, 2001) (“Statements of undisputed facts, as in this case, are generally unhelpful. It is on the underlying declarations, depositions and...