Ruffin v. OC Dental Corporation, Inc.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED and the Court awards $30,727.90 in attorney’s fees in favor of Third Mutual and against Michael Glover.

Third Mutual to submit a proposed judgment.

Third Mutual to give notice of this ruling. 8 Dodson v. O/C LaCilento 9 Ruffin v. OC Defendant OC Dental Corporation, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Dental Judgment/Adjudication is DENIED. Corporation, Inc. OC Dental’s Motion is based entirely on the assertion that plaintiff Ruffin did not exhaust her administrative remedies required under FEHA. This assertion is supported (1) by Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 208.1, where Plaintiff indicated she did not file a complaint with any government agency regarding the alleged harassment, and (2) by Plaintiff’s failure to produce a right to sue letter during discovery.

This is sufficient to meet OC Dental’s burden on summary judgment under CCP §473(p)(2).

In response, Ruffin has shown a triable issue of material fact, that her administrative remedies were exhausted by receipt of a right-to- sue Notice/Letter. See, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication, Fact 6]; Declaration of Corey A. Hall. Although Plaintiff has apparently failed to file her referenced Compendium of Evidence with the Court, her attorney’s declaration attests that a complaint was filed with the DFEH which then issued a right to sue letter.

In its Reply, OC Dental asks the Court not to consider Opposition evidence. In its discretion, the Court declines OC Dental’s request. Any error by Plaintiff’s counsel in responding to discovery should not result in Plaintiff’s loss of her claims, particularly where there is evidence that the right to sue letter was provided to Jarrod Y. Nakano, Defendant’s former counsel, in January of 2023. Whether the right to sue letter is authentic is a matter for trial, not a motion for summary judgment.

The Court disregards the two Declarations filed with OC Dental’s Reply because Reply Declarations are not authorized by statute, rule, or case law. [Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252]

Plaintiff to give notice. 10 Lin v. Zhang Before the Court is a motion by Defendants Ark Electronics USA, Inc. (“Ark), Wen Xia Zhang, and E.J. Constantine (collectively, “Defendants”) in which they seek to tax the memorandum of costs filed by Plaintiff Gary Lin at ROA 465. The motion is GRANTED in part, as set forth herein.