Hunter v. Carelock et al

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 04/21/10 GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 52 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Williams, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Raymond E. Hane, III, SBN 149960 Kimberly Carter, SBN 221283 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants, INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. and CARL CARELOCK Jenny C. Huang, SBN 223596 Sarita I. Ordóñez, SBN 216047 JUSTICE FIRST LLP 2831 Telegraph Avenue Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff Deborah Hunter UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEBORAH HUNTER, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CARL CARELOCK, ) INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) ) Defendants. ) Case No.: 2:08-CV-00370-JAM-GGH ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Judge: The Honorable John A. Mendez Date: 9:30am on April 7, 2010 Location: Courtroom 6, 14th Floor

Plaintiff Deborah Hunter brought this action against Defendants Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. ("Inter-Con") and Carl Carelock alleging, among other things, sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.). By motion filed on March 10, 2010, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's causes of action.
HUNTER V. CARELOCK, CASE NO. 2:08-CV-00370 (JAM)(GGH) [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 1 OF 3

LA #4847-9954-4325 v1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
1

The Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact on all of Plaintiff's causes of action against Defendant Inter-Con thus precluding summary judgment in favor of Inter-Con. Similarly, there are genuine issues of material fact on Plaintiff's causes of action against Defendant Carelock for sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.) (Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action), thus precluding summary judgment in favor of Mr. Carelock on Plaintiff's Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action. Plaintiff agreed that dismissal of her causes of action arising under Title VII against Mr. Carelock (i.e. her First Cause of Action for sexual harassment under Title VII, her Second Cause of Action for sexually hostile work environment under Title VII, and her Third Cause of Action for Retaliation under Title VII) is appropriate.1 Plaintiff also agreed to dismiss her Seventh Cause of Action against Mr. Carelock for retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal.Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.) Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment on Plaintiff's First, Second, Third and Seventh Causes of Action against Mr. Carelock only. The Court finds that Plaintiff's Ninth Cause of Action for Interference with Employment Relations, which was brought solely against Mr. Carelock, is not a legally viable theory of recovery against Mr. Carelock. Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal.3d 1, 23-25 (1990). The Court grants summary judgment on Plaintiff's Ninth Cause of Action against Mr. Carelock. Based upon the oral arguments of counsel at the hearing on April 7, 2010, the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to Defendants' motion, and all other pleadings and papers filed in this action, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's First Cause of Action

is DENIED as to Defendant Inter-Con and GRANTED as to Defendant Carelock. 2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Second Cause of

Action is DENIED as to Defendant Inter-Con and GRANTED as to Defendant Carelock.
Defendants' Motion sought dismissal of the Fourth Cause of Action as against Mr. Carelock on these same grounds; however, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint did not name Mr. Carelock as a Defendant on the Fourth Cause of Action.

28

LA #4847-9954-4325 v1

HUNTER V. CARELOCK, CASE NO. 2:08-CV-00370 (JAM)(GGH) [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 2 OF 3

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action

is DENIED as to Defendant Inter-Con and GRANTED as to Defendant Carelock. 4. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action

against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 5. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action

is DENIED as to both Defendants. 6. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action

is DENIED as to both Defendants. 7. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Seventh Cause of

Action is DENIED as to Defendant Inter-Con and GRANTED as to Defendant Carelock. 8. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Cause of Action

against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 9. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Ninth Cause of Action

against Defendant Carelock is GRANTED. 10. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Tenth Cause of Action

against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 11. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Eleventh Cause of

Action against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 12. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Twelfth Cause of

Action against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 13. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Thirteenth Cause of

Action against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 14. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Fourteenth Cause of

Action against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. Dated: April 21, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez___________ The Honorable John A. Mendez United States District Judge
HUNTER V. CARELOCK, CASE NO. 2:08-CV-00370 (JAM)(GGH) [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 3 OF 3

LA #4847-9954-4325 v1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com