On 03/15/2016 CAROLYN MEDINA filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GRO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are TERESA A. BEAUDET and DANIEL J. BUCKLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
TERESA A. BEAUDET
DANIEL J. BUCKLEY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL HEALTH PLAN
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS
AZADIAN LAW GROUP PC
AZADIAN GEORGE S.
LINDSAY MICHAEL R. ESQ.
CHAUVEL RONALD CARY
GONZALEZ JASON PAUL
CHAVEZ ANDREA OTA
ANDERSON ALICIA CABECEIRA
8/20/2019: Status Report - STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: AUGUST 21, 2019 HEARING
10/7/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE
9/5/2018: Minute Order -
4/4/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATING TO ECONOMIC AND NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES
4/4/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO.4 TO EXCLUDE MISREPRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF YOUNGER EMPLOYEES AND UNSUPPORTED ARGUMENTS THAT YOUNGER EMPLOYEES WERE TREATED MORE FAVORA
4/4/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE RELATED TO PLAINTIFF'S COLLATERAL SOURCE BENEFITS; PROPOSED ORDER THEREON
4/15/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT YOUNGER EMPLOYEES REPLACED PLAINTIFF
4/15/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING BY NON-SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES
4/15/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO PLAINTIFF'S RAPE, DIVORCE, AND DAUGHTERS SUICIDE ATTEMPT
4/19/2019: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7
4/24/2019: Jury Instructions - JURY INSTRUCTIONS JOINT LIST OF PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
4/24/2019: Witness List - WITNESS LIST JOINT WITNESS LIST
5/7/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
5/9/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO PLAINTIFF'S JOINT EMPLOYER/ SING
5/10/2019: Jury Instructions
5/31/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
6/7/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF VIDEO DEPOSITION EXCERPTS OF ARLENE ZEPEDA DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS
7/27/2017: ORDER FOR REMAND
Hearing03/06/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Carolyn Median (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketJury Instructions; Filed by Southern California Permanente Medical (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketJury Instructions; Filed by Southern California Permanente Medical (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Status Conference (reSetting a new date for Final Status Conference) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference re: Setting a new date for Final Status Con...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (RE Estrella Herman, CSR #13865)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of Order to Continue Final Status Conference); Filed by Carolyn Median (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Southern California Permanente Medical (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT FOR: 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Carolyn Median (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC613714 Hearing Date: February 03, 2021 Dept: 50
southern california permanente medical group, et al.
February 3, 2021
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFENDANTS’ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP & KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Plaintiff Carolyn Medina (“Medina”) filed this employment action on March 15, 2016. Defendants Southern California Permanente Medical Group (“SCPMG”) and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“KFHP”) (jointly, “Defendants”) now move for judgment on the pleadings as to the sixth cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1198.5. Medina opposes.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 438, the rules governing demurrers apply. ((Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) A motion by a defendant can be made on the ground that the complaint (or any cause of action therein) “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) The motion normally lies only for defects fully disclosed on the face of the pleading under attack or by matters for which judicial notice may be taken. ((Id., § 438, subd. (d).) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” ((C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. ((Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” ((Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)
Request for Judicial Notice
The Court grants Defendants’ request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A, B, and C. With respect to Exhibit B, the Court notes that it is solely taking judicial notice of the fact of the filing of the Declaration of William Blank. The Court does not take judicial notice of any of the facts set forth in the declaration. The Court denies Defendants’ request for judicial notice as to Exhibit H.
The Court overrules Medina’s objection to Exhibit A. The Court sustains Medina’s objection to Exhibit B to the extent that judicial notice is sought of the facts set forth in the Declaration of William Blank.
In support of the sixth cause of action, Medina alleges that Defendants violated Labor Code section 1198.5 by failing to provide Medina’s personnel file upon Medina’s request within the time allotted under California law. (Compl., ¶¶ 97-98.)
As an initial procedural matter, the Court finds that, to the extent that Defendants’ motion is brought under the common law and not Code of Civil Procedure section 438, Defendants’ motion is timely. ((Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [noting that nonstatutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made “at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself”].)
Defendants contend that the sixth cause of action must fail because it is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). Defendants point out that Labor Code section 1198.5 “does not apply to an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement” if certain requirements are met. (Lab. Code, § 1198.5, subd. (q).) According to Defendants, in order to determine whether Labor Code section 1198.5, subdivision (q) bars Medina’s claim, the Court would have to interpret the applicable collective bargaining agreement, which would trigger preemption. ((See Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers (9th Cir. 1990) 911 F.2d 233, 237 [“Federal law exclusively governs a suit for breach of a CBA under § 301, whose broad preemptive scope entirely displaces any state cause of action based on a CBA, as well as any state claim whose outcome depends on analysis of the terms of the agreement.”].) But whether Labor Code section 1198.5, subdivision (q) applies requires taking the preliminary step of determining that Medina was, in fact, “covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement.” In order to establish this fact, Defendants cite to two items for which they seek judicial notice: the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Healthcare Professionals unit between SEIU UHW-West and Kaiser (the “CBA”) and the Declaration of William Blank filed in a federal court action filed by Medina against Defendants.
As noted by Medina, the CBA, by its terms, expired on January 31, 2012. Defendants argue that an expired CBA is legally in effect until there is a new CBA. But the case and quote cited by Defendants do not offer the necessary support for this proposition. In International Assn. of Firefighters, Local 230 v. City of San Jose (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1195, the Court of Appeal stated that “when a collective bargaining agreement  expires the parties generally are required to maintain the status quo under the terms and conditions of the expired agreement during the period in which the parties continue to bargain in good faith on a new agreement.” Thus, in order for an expired CBA to be valid, there must be a determination that the parties have continued to bargain in good faith on a new agreement. That determination cannot be made here. To the extent that Defendants offer the Declaration of William Blank to explain the history of the bargaining process for the CBA, the Court notes that it has declined to take judicial notice of any of the facts set forth in the Declaration of William Blank. The facts set forth in Mr. Blank’s declaration are not “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” ((Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).) Moreover, the Court declines to take judicial notice of the subsequent CBA (Defendants’ Exhibit H) because it is new evidence that is not permitted with reply papers. ((See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537.) Consequently, the Court is unable to make a determination that Medina was “covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement” based on what is alleged in the Complaint and what is judicially noticeable.
Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Medina is ordered to give notice of this Order.
DATED: February 3, 2021 ________________________________
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases