Ambrosini v. Universal Cable Holdings, Inc. dba Suddenlink Communications et al

Filing 69

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties are further ordered to appear at a case management conference on June 9, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KEITH AMBROSINI,

Case No. 14-cv-00896-HSG

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
11

UNIVERSAL CABLE HOLDINGS, INC.
DBA SUDDENLINK
COMMUNICATIONS,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION, AND
SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 45

13
14

On April 23, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary

15

Judgment (Dkt. No. 45). A bench trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on July 6, 2015, and the

16

parties’ pretrial filing deadlines are approaching. In the interest of enabling the parties to prepare

17

appropriate pretrial filings and participate in informed settlement discussions, the Court issues the

18

following rulings on Defendant’s motion, which is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The

19

Court will issue an order setting out a more detailed analysis underlying these rulings as soon as

20

practicable.

21

Defendant moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on

22

all of Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Under Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure 56(a), “the court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no

24

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

25

At the summary judgment stage, “all justifiable inferences must be drawn in [the nonmovant’s]

26

favor.” See United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir.

27

1989) (en banc) (citation omitted).

28

In an employment discrimination case, a plaintiff “need produce very little evidence in

1

order to overcome an employer’s motion for summary judgment.” Chuang v. Univ. of California

2

Davis, Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 1115, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck and

3

Co., ---F.3d---, 2015 WL 1591368, at *3 (9th Cir. 2015) (reversing grant of summary judgment for

4

defendant in discrimination case brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act

5

(“FEHA”) and noting that “it should not take much for a plaintiff in a discrimination case to

6

overcome a summary judgment motion.”). “This is because the ultimate question is one that can

7

only be resolved through a searching inquiry -- one that is most appropriately conducted by a

8

factfinder, upon a full record.” Chuang, 225 F.3d at 1124 (citation and internal quotation marks

9

omitted).
Applying the Ninth Circuit’s well-settled standards, the Court finds that Plaintiff has (only

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

just) presented enough evidence to give rise to triable issues of material fact with regard to five of

12

his causes of action. The Court further finds that the sixth claim is insufficient to proceed to trial

13

as a matter of law. Accordingly:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

(1)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action

(Employment Discrimination) is DENIED;
(2)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action

(Breach of Contract) is DENIED;
(3)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action

(Negligence) is DENIED;
(4)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) is GRANTED;
(5)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action

(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) is DENIED; and
(6)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action

(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy) is DENIED.
In addition, while the Court need not conclusively decide at the summary judgment stage

27

whether Plaintiff ultimately will be able to prove an entitlement to punitive damages, the Court

28

believes that the evidence proffered to date would be extremely unlikely to support an award of
2

1
2

punitive damages if proven at trial.
The parties are further ORDERED to appear at a case management conference on June 9,

3

2015 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss next steps in this matter. Lead trial counsel for each party is required

4

to attend the case management conference, and counsel should be prepared to discuss the status of

5

settlement discussions.

6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: June 1, 2015
8
9
________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3