This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/29/2022 at 12:03:05 (UTC).

ERIC PIERCE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/06/2017 ERIC PIERCE filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. 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 ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5062

  • Filing Date:

    09/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

TERESA A. BEAUDET

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PIERCE ERIC

Defendants

GUTIERREZ BERTHA

GURROLA MIREYA

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

ANDERSON LEANA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

TAYLOR GREGORY R. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

HUREVITZ LINDA BETH ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

11/28/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Exhibit List - EXHIBIT LIST FOURTH AMENDED JOINT EXHIBIT LIST (LONG CAUSE)

11/18/2022: Exhibit List - EXHIBIT LIST FOURTH AMENDED JOINT EXHIBIT LIST (LONG CAUSE)

Notice - NOTICE SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF LONG CAUSE PACKET TO DEPT. L

11/18/2022: Notice - NOTICE SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF LONG CAUSE PACKET TO DEPT. L

Notice - NOTICE AMENDED NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF LONG CAUSE PACKET TO DEPT. 1

11/17/2022: Notice - NOTICE AMENDED NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF LONG CAUSE PACKET TO DEPT. 1

Notice - NOTICE AMENDED NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF LONG CAUSE PACKET TO DEPT. 1

11/17/2022: Notice - NOTICE AMENDED NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF LONG CAUSE PACKET TO DEPT. 1

Exhibit List - EXHIBIT LIST THIRD AMENDED JOINT

11/17/2022: Exhibit List - EXHIBIT LIST THIRD AMENDED JOINT

Jury Instructions - JURY INSTRUCTIONS AMENDED JOINT LIST OF

11/16/2022: Jury Instructions - JURY INSTRUCTIONS AMENDED JOINT LIST OF

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

11/10/2022: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. K TO EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE RELATED TO ANY PAST CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OF PLAINTIFF

11/15/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. K TO EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE RELATED TO ANY PAST CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OF PLAINTIFF

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE K TO EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE RELATED TO ANY PAST CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OF PLAINTIFF

11/14/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE K TO EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE RELATED TO ANY PAST CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS OF PLAINTIFF

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION IN LIMINE .)

11/10/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION IN LIMINE .)

Brief - BRIEF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS' TRIAL BRIEF [VOL. 1 OF 3]

11/9/2022: Brief - BRIEF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS' TRIAL BRIEF [VOL. 1 OF 3]

Brief - BRIEF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS' TRIAL BRIEF [VOL. 3 OF 3]

11/9/2022: Brief - BRIEF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS' TRIAL BRIEF [VOL. 3 OF 3]

Trial Brief

11/9/2022: Trial Brief

Brief - BRIEF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS' TRIAL BRIEF [VOL. 2 OF 3]

11/9/2022: Brief - BRIEF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS' TRIAL BRIEF [VOL. 2 OF 3]

Exhibit List - EXHIBIT LIST SECOND AMENDED JOINT EXHIBIT

11/9/2022: Exhibit List - EXHIBIT LIST SECOND AMENDED JOINT EXHIBIT

Trial Brief

11/9/2022: Trial Brief

Notice - NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF LONG CAUSE PACKET TO DEPT. 1

11/9/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF LONG CAUSE PACKET TO DEPT. 1

328 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/12/2022
  • Hearing12/12/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 1 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/30/2022
  • Hearing11/30/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/28/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/28/2022
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/28/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/18/2022
  • DocketNotice (SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF LONG CAUSE PACKET TO DEPT. l); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant); Leana Anderson (Defendant); Mireya Gurrola (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/18/2022
  • DocketExhibit List (FOURTH AMENDED JOINT EXHIBIT LIST (LONG CAUSE)); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant); Leana Anderson (Defendant); Mireya Gurrola (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/17/2022
  • DocketNotice (AMENDED NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF LONG CAUSE PACKET TO DEPT. 1); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant); Leana Anderson (Defendant); Mireya Gurrola (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/17/2022
  • DocketExhibit List (THIRD AMENDED JOINT); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant); Leana Anderson (Defendant); Mireya Gurrola (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/17/2022
  • DocketNotice (Amended Notice of Submission of Long Cause Packet to Dept. 1); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant); Leana Anderson (Defendant); Mireya Gurrola (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
484 More Docket Entries
  • 10/27/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Eric Pierce (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/04/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) SEXIGENDER HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE 12940 ET SEQ.; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Eric Pierce (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5062    Hearing Date: May 18, 2021    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

ERIC PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 675062

Hearing Date:

May 18, 2021

Hearing Time:

2:00 p.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 128.7

Background

Plaintiff Eric Pierce (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (the “County”), Leana Anderson (“Anderson”), Mireya Gurrola (“Gurrola”), and Bertha Gutierrez (collectively, “Defendants”) on September 6, 2017, alleging various claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The asserted bases for the discrimination/harassment/retaliation claims are sex, disability, age and race.

On April 5, 2021, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, but granted summary adjudication to the claim for failure to engage in the interactive process.

Plaintiff now moves for $88,225.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 on the grounds that Defendants presented improper, frivolous, and unmeritorious papers in making their motion for summary judgment/adjudication.

Defendants oppose and counter-request $3,000.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel.

Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Section 128.7 “authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions to check abuses in the filing of pleadings, petitions, written notices of motions or similar papers.” ((Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 514.) “Subdivision (b) requires that parties and their attorneys certify that pleadings or other written matters presented to the courts have merit, ‘to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.’” ((Id. at p. 516.) There are four conditions that must be met: (1) the claim is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claim is warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishing of new law; (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 128.7(b).) To obtain sanctions under section 128.7, “the moving party must show the party's conduct in asserting the claim was objectively unreasonable. A claim is objectively unreasonable if ‘any reasonable attorney would agree that [it] is totally and completely without merit.’” (Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 440 (internal citations omitted).)

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that Defendants brought their summary judgment/adjudication motion primarily to harass Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that Defendants knew about evidence of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA and a failure to engage in a good faith interactive process and to accommodate Plaintiff’s disabilities based on declarations and Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony, and yet Defendants still made their motion for summary/judgment adjudication and did not withdraw it. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendants should not have argued that Anderson was immune from liability for FEHA harassment and IIED based upon a managerial privilege that is unsupported by law or fact. In short, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment/adjudication was frivolous.

The Court disagrees that Defendants’ conduct rises to the level necessary to sustain monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. Although the Court largely agreed with Plaintiff in denying Defendants’ motion, the mere denial of the motion is insufficient to warrant the sanctions requested. In any event, the entire motion cannot be deemed frivolous considering the Court did grant summary adjudication as to the cause of action for the failure to engage in the interactive process. The Court acknowledges that Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony; however, it appears that Defendants had a good faith basis in making their motion and not withdrawing it, believing, inter alia, that Plaintiff relied on objectionable evidence regarding Defendants’ alleged misconduct or construing the application of the law differently to the facts in a reasonable though ultimately different manner than the Court. And, as noted by Defendants, Plaintiff submitted many declarations attesting to Defendants’ conduct after Defendants already had filed their motion for summary judgment/adjudication.

In short, the Court finds that the litigation approach of Defendants is better characterized as vigorous rather than “totally and completely without merit.” (Peake v Underwood, supra at 440.) Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

The Court denies Defendants’ counter-request for $3,000.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel. The Court does not find that this motion was brought primarily for an improper purpose.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.

The Court orders Plaintiff to give notice of this Order.

DATED: May 18, 2021 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court



Case Number: ****5062    Hearing Date: March 23, 2021    Dept: 50

THE COURT NEEDS ADDITIONAL TIME TO REVIEW THE MSJ/MSA PAPERS.  THE HEARING WILL NOT TAKE PLACE TOMORROW.  THE CLERK WILL CONTACT THE PARTIES IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO RESET THE HEARING DATE.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer TAYLOR GREGORY RAY