Judge David Brown's Ruling

8/13/2019 Judge David Brown's Ruling

1/12

T3OOcnEoounJ:u.o

o=1Ic

Ss

2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

Charles L. Post, State Bar N o. 16 04 43Meagan D. Christ iansen, State Bar No. 240679weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodinLAW CORPORATION400 Capi tol Ma l l , 11th FloorSacramento, CA 95 814( 9 1 6 ) 5 5 8 - 6 0 0 0 - M a i n(916) 446-1611 - FacsimileAttorneys for Defendants Service Employees InternationalUnion Local 1000, Rich Boyd and Maria PattersonFelix De La Torre, Chief Counsel (SBN 204282)Service Employees International Union, Local 10001808 14"^ StreetSacramento, CA 958 11(9 1 6 ) 5 5 4 -1 2 7 9 -T e l e p h o n e(916) 554-1272 - FacsimileAttorneys for Defendants Service Employees InternationalUnion Local 1000, Rich Boyd and Maria Patterson

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

l5t\ 'CV2 A;18:1}7- A f : i . f ;Tv) COURTS

MECHELLE SHERLES; and ROBYN SHERLES,Plaintiffs,vs.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONALUNION LOCAL 1000; SERVICE EMPLOYEESINTERNATIONAL UNION; RICH BOYD, anindividual; MARIA PATTERSON, anindividual ; and DOES 1-100 inclusive.Defendants.

Case No . : 34 -2 011 -001 147 45O R D ER AFTER HEA R ING O N D E FE N D AN TSSERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONALUN ON L O C A L 1000, RICH B O Y D A N DMARIA PATTERSON S SUMMARYJ U D G M E N T OR, IN THE ALTERNAT IVE,S UM M A R Y A D J U D IC A T I O N O F ISSUES

Date: Novem ber 1, 201 3Time: 2:00 p.m.Dept.: 53Jud ge: H on . Da vid I. Brov\/nCom plaint Filed: Novem ber 29 , 201 1Trial Date: N/A

{1699750.DOC;} Order After Hearing on MSJ/MSA


2/12


3/12

1 5 2 . 4 ; t he 12 th fo r v io la t ion o f C iv i l Co de 17 08 .5 ; t he 13 th fo r v io la t ion o f C iv i l Cod e2 5 2 . 1 ; the 14th fo r loss o f consort ium; and the 15th fo r sexua l o r ien ta t ion harassment (Gov.3 Co d e 1 2 9 4 0 ) .4 Defenda nts Loca l 10 00 , Rich Boyd and M ar io Pat te rson mo ve for sum ma ry5 ad j ud i ca t ion o f each cause o f act ion aga inst the m . De fenda nt Soph ia Perk ins is separa te ly6 represented and not a par ty to th is m ot io n .7 Plaint i ff M ec he l le Shereles an d her spouse Robyn Shereles' a l le gat ion s al l arise ou t of8 events dur in g the per iod between June 30 and Augu st 2 0 1 0 , whe n Loca l 000 was co l lect ive ly9 barg a in in g wi th the State o f Ca l i fo rn i a ; such co l lect ive bar ga in ing was he ld pr ima r i ly a t the

10 Ho l iday Inn in Sac ram ento .11 Sum mary Ad jud ic a t io n o f the 1st cause o f act ion fo r sexua l harassm ent , a l leg ed12 (aga inst a l l de fendants) an d the 2n d fo r re ta l ia t ion (Gov. C od e, sec. 12 94 0) (aga inst Loca l13 1000 ) and 15 th fo r sexua l o r ien ta t ion ha rassmen t (Gov . Co de 1 29 40 ) , (aga ins t Loca l 10 0014 on ly) o re GR AN TE D.15 The Fa i r Em ploym ent and Hou sing Act p ro tects em ployee s f rom the i r em ploye r. G ov .

6 C od e, sec. 12 94 0. In ma king its de ter m inat ion as to whe ther p la in t i f f Me che l le Sher les was an17 em ploye e o f Loca l 10 00 , the Co urt must cons ide r the " to ta l i ty o f c i rcumstances " tha t re flect

8 upo n the nature o f the wo rk re la t ionsh ip o f the part ies, wi th emp hasis upo n the extent to wh ic h19 the defen dan t cont ro ls the p la in ti f f's per fo rm anc e o f em ploy m ent dut ies. Verno n v . Sta te o f20 Ca / / fo rn ;a (2004 ) 116 Ca l . Ap p . 4 th 14 , 124 .21 He re, i t is und ispu ted that p la int i f f was at a l l re levan t t imes em plo ye d by the State of22 Ca l i f o rn ia (UMF 1 1 -1 2 ) , was a me mbe r o f SEIU Local 100 0 (UMF 1 3 -14 ) and has he ld23 var ious e lected an d app o in t ed ro les wi th Loca l 1 00 0, inc lud ing as Vice Ch o ir o f the2 4 B a rg a ini n g Un i t ( " B UN Q No . 4 . (UMF 1 3 -1 4 , 2 0 - 2 3 ) .25 M ov ing party presents ev idence tha t p la in t i f f has never been em ploy ed by Loca l 0 0 0 .26 (UMS 15-29 . ) Loca l 10 00 had no pow er to d isc ip l ine , p ro m ote , t ransfer o r te rm inate27 Mech e l le 's em ploy me nt a t the Sta te . (UM F 16 , 18a. ) Loca l 100 0 was not responsib le fo r28 t ra in ing Me che l le or responsib le fo r her wor k ass ignm ents, schedu les or com pen sat io n f rom



4/12

TJOcniEouJre

TSVx:ucn2 co=1 3S is

1 the State. (UMF 18b.)2 Mechelle's participation with Local 10 00 was as a mem ber and elected officer of the3 Local. (UMF 1 3, 14 , 2 0 , 21.) She took union leave from her emp loymen t with the State to4 attend the negotiations for the collective barg aining agreem ent. (UMF 2 0 -2 4 , 24a ) She5 continu ed to maintain her emp loymen t with the State and draw her State salary. (UMF 8b , 8c.)6 Mec helle cou ld only be removed from her office with Local 10 00 in acco rdan ce with the Policy7 File, which requires the support of the members of Unit 4 . (UMF 19a)8 In op po sitio n, plaintiff submits an SEIU Local 10 00 Request for Paid Leave of Absence9 for m , signed by plaintiff and Yvonne W alker as the representative of Local 1000 on Ma rch 15 ,

10 2 0 1 0 , reflecting that for wor/cers' comp ensaf/on purpos es, plaintiff wil l be deem ed an employee1 of Local 1000.12 Mo ving parties rely on Estrada v. City of Los Angeles (201 3) 21 8 C ol. Ap p. 4th 14 3,13 15 5, where the City of Los Angeles designated unco mpe nsated volunteer reserve officers fell14 within the definition of "employee," strictly for purposes of workers' com pens ation cove rage. In15 Estrada, the Court foun d that by do ing so, the City did not convert these unco mpe nsated

6 volunteers into mu nicipal employees for purposes of FEHA. /d.7 As she asserts, the Request for Paid Leave of Absence form may have led plain tiff to

18 believe that she was creating an emp loyer-emp loyee relationship with Local 10 00 . However,19 this single fac tor alone (plaintiff's belief) is insufficient as a matter of low to create on emp loyer-2 0 employee relationship.21 Mo ving parties hove shown the absence of any evidence that Local 10 00 had the right22 to control the man ner and means of acco mp lishing the results desired , the lack of Local OOO's23 right to discharge Mec helle at wil l , the absence of Local OOO's authority to direct the manner24 in which Mec helle did her wo rk, Local OOO's lack of ownership or control of the location25 where the work was performed (a hotel) and the payment of plaintiff 's wages by the State.26 The Co urt f inds that for the purposes of FEHA causes of ac tion , plaintiff was not an27 employee of Local 000. The provision of workers' compensation coverage alone is insufficient28 to create a disputed issue of ma terial fact.



5/12


6/12

1 p la in t i f f . F luhar iy v . F luharty (19 97) 59 Ca l . Ap p. 4 th 4 8 4 , 4 9 7 .2 Ag a i n , a l th ou gh no ev idence o f Boyd 's in ten t to cause a harm fu l o r o f fens ive conta ct is3 g ive n, the Co urt may deny sum mary ad ju d ic a t io n where a ma ter ia l fact is on ind iv idua l 's sta te4 of m in d, or lack ther eof, and that fact is sou ght to be estab l ished solely by the ind ividua l 's5 a f f i rm at ion thereof . Co de Civ Proc 437 c(e ) . The Co urt can not con c lud e as a ma t ter o f low6 tha t no batte ry was co mm it ted by Boyd aga ins t p la in t if f wh en Boyd gave p la in t i f f a kiss .7 (D ispu ted MF 68 -76 )8 A perso n com m its a sexual battery by do in g any of the fo l lo w in g: (1) acts with the intent9 to cause a harmfu l o r o f fens ive conta ct wi th on in t imate part o f ano ther , and a sexua l ly0 of fensive conta ct with that person direct ly or indirect ly results; (2) acts with the intent to cause a

1 harmfu l o r o f fens ive contact wi th another by use o f h is or her in t imate par t , and a sexua l ly12 offensive con tac t with that person direct ly or indirect ly results; or (3) acts to cause on im m ine nt13 app rehe ns ion o f t he sexua l conduc t . (C ivi l C od e , sec. 7 0 8 . 5 . )14 N o sexua l ba t te ry in v io la t ion o f Civ i l C od e, sec. 17 08 .5 can be sho wn , how ever, as

5 the de f in i t io n of " int im ate parts" in subs ect ion (d) of the statute does not include the l ips.6 Ho we ver , there is no sho win g m od e tha t in kissing pla in t i f f , Boyd was ac t ing as the

17 agen t o f Loca l 10 0 0, nor has p la in t i f f p rov ided any ev idence tha t Loca l 10 00 had adva nce18 kn ow led ge of, d ir ec ted , auth oriz ed or there after rat i f ied his act of kissing her. The str ict l iabi l i ty19 FEHA imposes on employe rs fo r harassme nt o f emp loyees is no t ap p l ic ab le to co m m on low2 0 tor ts . My ers v . Trendwesf Resorts , Inc. (20 07 ) 14 8 C a l . Ap p. 4 th 4 0 3 .21 Plainti f f's assert ion that the text messages sent to her by Boyd an d her inte rro ga t ion by22 Harr is a lso const i tu te assau l t . Me re wo rds , howev er th rea ten in g, wi l l no t am ou nt to an assau lt .23 (5 W i t k in , Su mm ar / o f C a l . Law, To r t s , 3 8 3 , pp . 59 9 - 60 0 ) . P lotn ik v . Me ihaus (201 2 ) 2 082 4 Ca l . A p p . 4 t h 1 5 9 0 , 1 6 0 4 .25 A v io la t ion o f Civ i l C od e, sec. 52 .4 occurs where on ind iv idu a l is sub jected to gen der26 v io len ce, wh ich requ i res: (1) the use o f phys ica l fo rce tha t cou ld be the cause o f a cr im ina l27 co m pla in t ; o r (2) a phys ica l in t rus ion o f sexua l na ture under coerc ive con d i t ion s. (Civ i l C od e 28 52 .4 . ) Here , Me che l le fa ils to even a l lege tha t Boyd 's k iss cou ld hove resu l ted in a cr im ina l



7/12

7O

CtoEourea0).cucn2 co

=1c o S5 .2

1 co m pla in t . Mech e l le adm its tha t the requ i red "v io lence" and " fo rce" were absent f rom Boyd 's2 k iss. (UM F 72 -7 4) Th is cause o f act io n must be sum mari ly ad j ud ic a te d in defendan ts ' favor .3 Sum mary ad jud i ca t io n o f the 5 th cause o f act io n fo r in ten t iona l in f l ic t ion o f em ot io na l4 distress is GR AN TE D.5 Plaint i f f a l lege s th is cause of ac t ion aga inst a l l defe nda nts.6 To establ ish a cla im of inten t iona l inf l ict i on of em oti on al d istress pla int i f f must sho w: (1)7 ext reme an d out ra geo us cond uct d i rected a t the p la in t i f f ; (2) wi th the in tent to caus e, o r act ing8 in consc iou s d isrega rd o f the proba b i l i ty o f cau s ing , em ot io na l d is tress ; (3) severe or ext reme9 em ot io na l d is tress ; (4) actua l and prox im ate cause o f the em ot io na l d is t ress ; an d (5)

10 consequential dama ges caused by the emotional distress. [Christensen v. Superior Court1 1 (1 9 9 1 ) 5 4 Ca l . 3 d 8 6 8 , 9 0 3 ; M / c fi a e/ ; a n v . S O F (1 9 9 6 ) 5 0 Ca l . A p p . 4 t h 1 0 9 3 , 1 1 1 3 -1 1 1 4 . )

2 In orde r fo r con duc t to be "out rageo us" i t must be so ext reme as to "exceed a l l boun ds3 o f tha t usua l ly to le ra ted in a c iv i lized com mu ni ty . " [Chr is tensen, supra , 54 Ca l .3 d a t 90 3. )

14 " In eva lu at ing whe ther the defendant 's con duc t was ou t rag eou s, i t is "no t . . . en ou gh15 tha t the defe nda nt has acted wi th on in tent wh ich is to r t ious or even cr i m ina l , o r tha t he has16 in tended to in f l ic t em ot ion a l d ist ress, o r even tha t h is con duc t has been charac ter ized by

7 'ma l ice , ' o r a degre e o f agg rav at ion wh ich w ou ld ent i t le the p la in t i f f to pun i t ive dam ag es fo r18 ano ther to r t . L iab il ity has been fou nd on ly whe re the con duc t has been so out ra geo us in

9 chara cter , an d so ext reme in deg ree, as to go bey ond a l l poss ib le boun ds o f decen cy, an d to2 0 be regarded as a t roc ious , and u t ter ly in to le rab le in a c iv i lized com mu ni ty . " (Rest. 2d Torts , 21 4 6 , co m . d , p . 73 . ) " Coch ran v . Coc h ran (1998 ) 65 Ca l . Ap p . 4 th 4 8 8 , 496 . )2 2 The al le ge d co nd uc t wh ich form s the basis of th is cla im is (1) a quic k kiss by Boyd an d2 3 three sexual text messages to pla int i f f in 2 0 1 0 , (2) p la int i f f 's que st io nin g by Harris as part of24 Loca l OOO's invest igat ion of her harassment cla ims, (3) Patterson's del ivery of a personal25 add ress , (4) the bod y im pa ct by Perkins into pla in t i f f in 2 0 1 2 and (5) p la in t i f f bein g present in26 the sam e e levator as Harr is in 2 0 1 2 .27 A l th oug h p la in t i f f emphasizes the to r tu re o f the me et ing wi th Harr is , no o f f ice m eet in g ,28 howe ver long or s tressfu l co n, wi tho ut phys ica l fo rce or fa lse imp r ison me nt , const i tu te the k ind



8/12


9/12

T3OcncreEootireT3ux:un2 =o

=1.E 8 55 J5

1 Plaintiff's allega tions of neg ligence also foil as the con duc t alleg ed is intentio nal in2 nature. Wh ere the cond uct alleged is intentiona l, it cann ot be used as a basis for a negligent3 infl iction of em otional distress claim . Edwards v. United States Fidelity & Gua r. Co. (N .D. Cal.4 1994) 84 8 F. Supp. 14 60 , 14 66 .5 Summary adju dica tion of the 9th for violation of Labor Co de , sec. 11 02 .5 is6 GRANTED.7 Mechelle's claims for retaliation in violation of Labor Co de section 102.5 foil because8 Mec helle cannot establish: (I) that she suffered any adverse emp loymen t action (as set forth9 ab ove , she is not a Local 10 00 emp loyee).

10 On ly an "employer" may be subject to l iability for violating Labor Co de section 102.5.1 As this alone is dispositive, the Court need not address the remaining issues.

2 Summary adju dication of the 10th for violation of Civil Co de , sec. 51 is GRAN TED.13 Plaintiff's Unruh cause of ac tion requires that to establish a prima facie case , she must14 demo nstrate that she "(1) is a memb er of a protected class, (2) attempted to contract for15 services and afford herself of the full benefits and enjoyment of a public ac co m m od atio n, (3)16 was denied the full benefits or enjoyment of a public ac co mm od atio n, and (4) such services

7 were av ailab le to similarly situated persons outside his or her protec ted class wh o received full18 benefits or were treated better." (S;mone/// v. Univ. of Ca l. (N .D. C a l. 20 07 ) 20 0 7 U.S. Dist.19 LEXIS 8 6 9 5 2 , at *3- 4.)20 Plaintiff has failed to allege that she was una ble to enjoy the full benefits of a pub lic21 acc om mo dation . She was and has continued to be a member of Local 100 0. In the absence22 of this element, plaintiff canno t prevail on this cause of actio n.23 No respond eat superior l iability con be imposed on the Local 10 00 for the "body slam"24 actions of Perkins. Nor did Local 10 00 ratify her cond uct.25 Summary adju dication of the 13th for violation of Civil Co de , sec. 52 .1 is GRAN TED.26 The elements of a cause of action under Civil Cod e section 52 .1 are as follows: (1)27 defendan t's interference or attem pted interference with a con stitutional or statutory right of28 plaintiff by threats, intimid ation , or co erc ion ; (2) plaintiff 's belief that a violent act wo uld occu r



10/12


11/12

T3ODCreEou.iCreTSasszu12=

o^ s

2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

Plaintiff Mechelle's marriage to plaintiff Robyn Sherles post-dates the distressing conductal leged.

Summary adjudication of Issue 16, that Plaintiff's claims against defendant Pattersonhave been fully adjudicated by Local 00 0 is GRANTED.

Mechelle's claims against Patterson have already been adjudicated by Local 1000.(UMF 164-170.) Judicial review of adjudicatory decisions of private organizations is onlyappropriate through a wri t of administrat ive mandamus. A proceeding under Code of Civi lProcedure section 1094.5 is the exclusive remedy for judicial review of adjudicatoryadministrative actions of private organizations.

As summary adjudication of each cause of action is granted as to Local 1000 andPatterson, their motion for summary judgment is also GRANTED. As to Boyd, summaryjudgment is DENIED, as the 3'' ' for assault and 4th for battery, have been DENIED as to Boyd.

IT IS SO ORDERED.NOV 2 1 2013

Dated: HON.DAVID I. BROWNJUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

APPROVED AS TO FORM:CHOUDHARY LAW OFFICE

By: Joel Rap aportNi lesh ChoudaryAttorneys fo r Plaintiffs

{1699750.DOC;} 1 Order After Hearing on MSJ/MSA


12/12

tobintrf M RITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE

Meagan D. Christiansen716.558.6038 DIRECTmchristiansenf3weintraub.com

N o v e m b e r 20 2013

H o n . Da v i d I. BrownDe p a r t me n t 53Sacramen to Coun ty Supe r io r Cou r t720 Nin th St reetS a c ra me n t o , CA 9 5 8 1 4RE: Sherles v. SEIU Local 1000 et aL

Socromen to Coun ty Supe r io r Cou r t Cose No.3 4 - 2 0 1 1 - 0 0 1 1 4 7 4 5Dear Judge R. 'own:Enclosed p lease f ind the P roposed Ord e r A f te r Hea r ing on De f e n d a n t s ' Mo t i o n for SummaryJ u d g me n t Or in the A l te rna t i ve , Summary Ad ju d ica t ion . Pu rsuant to Ca l i fo rn ia Ru les ofCo u r t , Ru le 3 . 1 3 1 2 , a copy of the p roposed o rde r was sent to Pla int i f fs ' counsel onN o v e m b e r 13 2013. A copy of my N o v e m b e r 13 2013 letter is a t t a c h e d . We have notrece ived anyob jec t ions as to the f o rm of theo rd e r and there fore aresubm i t ting the o rd e r toyou for s ignature anda p p r o v a l . O n c e theO r d e r iss ign ed, p lease re turn theendo rsed cop iesto me in the re turn enve lope pro v ide d.T h a n kyou for your a t ten t ion to th is matter.Very tru ly yours,we in t raub tob in ched iak co leman g rod inLAW,.CORPORATION

M e a g a n D. Chr is t iansenM D C / r cEnclosures

{1702504.DOC;}we intrau b tobin chediak coleman grodin law corporation400 Capilo l Ma l l , 11" 'Floor, Sacramento, Cal i forn ia 958U | (916)558.6000 | F I916I 446.1611 I www.we in t ra u b .c o m

Judge David Brown's Ruling

Documents

Transcript of Judge David Brown's Ruling