Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.

Filing 121

ORDER On Cross Motions 32 40 For Summary Judgment, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/14/2011. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Armand George Skol, SBN 058974
William A. Lapcevic, SBN 238893
ARATA, SWINGLE, SODHI & VAN EGMOND
A Professional Law Corporation
912 11th Street, First Floor (95354)
Post Office Box 3287
Modesto, California 95353
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
Foster Poultry Farms, A California Corporation

9

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11

FRESNO DIVISION
12
13

MARIA ESCRIBA,
14

Plaintiff,
15

vs.
16
17
18

FOSTER POULTRY FARMS,
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
Defendant.

) Case No.: 1:09-CV-01878-OWW-GSA
)
) ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
) SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
)
)
)
)
)
)

19
20
21
22
23

Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part and denying
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part;
Order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in part and denying
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in part.

24

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

25

(docket #40). This matter is also before the Court on Defendant’s cross-Motion for

26

Summary Judgment (docket #32).The Court has reviewed the moving papers,

27

opposition papers, reply briefs and has heard oral argument on the motions from the

28

parties on May 13, 2011.

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION - 1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1
2

As explained in the Court’s Orders on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment/Summary

3

Adjudication (docket #98), the Court Orders the Following:

4

1.

The Court rules upon Defendant’s evidentiary objection to Plaintiff’s

5

medical evidence and finds that such evidence shall be admitted under the residual

6

exception to the hearsay rule (FRE 807).

7
8

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of serious

health condition is GRANTED, and the Court finds and summarily adjudicates that this

9

element of Plaintiff’s claims is proven.
10

3.

11

Plaintiff and Defendant FPF’s motions on the first and third claims

12

regarding interference for mischaracterizing Plaintiff’s leave in violation the FMLA and

13

CFRA are DENIED.

14

4.

Plaintiff and Defendant’s motions on the second and fourth claims

15
16

regarding interference for termination of Plaintiff in violation of the FMLA and CFRA are

17

DENIED.

18

5.

19

Defendant’s motion regarding the fifth claim for the failure to prevent

discrimination under the FEHA is GRANTED.

20

6.

Defendant’s motion regarding the sixth claim for wrongful termination in

21
22

violation of public policy is DENIED.
7.

24
25

Plaintiff is the prevailing party regarding the failure to promptly pay wages

8.

23

Defendant’s motions regarding punitive damages for the claims arising

owed.

26

under State law are GRANTED.
27
28

9.

Defendant’s motion regarding penalty damages for failure to promptly pay

wages owed is DENIED.
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION - 2

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1
2

10.

Plaintiff’s motion regarding the affirmative defense of unclean hands is

DENIED.

3

11.

Plaintiff’s motion regarding the affirmative defenses of waiver, estoppel,

4
5
6
7

laches, acquiescence, and/or consent is GRANTED.
12.

Plaintiff’s motion regarding the affirmative defense of good faith is

DENIED.

8

13.

Plaintiff’s motion regarding the affirmative defense of mitigation of

9
10

damages is DENIED.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: June 14, 2011

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER
United States District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION - 3

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com