Motion for Summary Adjudication of Emotional Distress Damages
Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: CIVSB2226979 Plaintiff, [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY v. ADJUDICATION FILED BY DEFENDANT RONALD ABARO RONALD ABARO DDS, INC. dba CHINO DDS, INC. FAMILY DENTAL, et al., Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a wage and hour and employment litigation. On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff
Elizabeth Rodriguez filed her Complaint against Defendants Ronald Abaro DDS, Inc. dba Chino
Family Dental (CFD), Ronald Abaro, Carlos Bermudez, Ianina Cheung, and other parties who
obtained summary adjudication orders in their favor. The operative First Amended Complaint
pleads 22 causes of action. Defendants answered.
A. The FAC’s Allegations
The FAC alleges Rodriguez was employed by CFD as a registered dental assistant (¶ 27).
She suffers from depression and anxiety (¶ 28). In the course of her employment, supervisor
Bermudez would stand over her and stare at her, talk down to her and overexplain things, and
address her unprofessionally in front of patients. Bermudez, a married man, and coworker
Cheung would kiss and engage in an overly friendly manner with each other that made Plaintiff
uncomfortable. Additionally, Cheung started inappropriately touching Rodriguez, and on one
occasion, it so upset her that she had a panic attack and had to leave work early and be put off
work for a few days. Also, manager Erika Laza called Rodriguez hard-headed in front of patients
(¶¶ 29-33, 36, 42). On one occasion, Rodriguez was assigned to work with a dentist who may
have had Covid with no requirement that he be off work or take a test before returning to work.
Yet, when Rodriguez took off sick unrelated to any Covid symptoms, she was required to obtain
a negative Covid test before returning (¶¶ 34-35, 39). Further, Rodriguez requested a day off on
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
two different occasions to assist family and was denied those time-off requests (¶¶ 38, 40).
Plaintiff was also subjected to false and improper write-ups and warnings. Finally, due to the
stress at work, she quit on May 23, 2021 (¶¶ 41, 43, 45).
The FAC also alleges that Rodriguez was not provided uninterrupted meals and rest
breaks, which resulted in the premium wages not being paid or recorded in her wage statements.
She was not reimbursed for the required Covid test she took, and for vehicle expenses when she
traveled to different locations (¶¶ 39, 46-49, 62, 68, 81-82, 90). When she was constructively
terminated, Rodriguez did not receive her final paycheck in a timely manner (¶ 75).
Finally, the FAC alleges Defendant Abaro was an owner, director, officer, or managing
agent of CFD and personally involved in the wage matters. Alternatively, he was the alter ego of
CFD (¶¶ 13-14, 17).
Defendant CFD moves for summary adjudication of the emotional distress damages.
Plaintiff Rodriguez opposes. Defendant CFD replies. After issuing a tentative ruling and holding
a hearing on the motion, the Court now issues its final ruling.
II. WHY THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED
Defendant CFD seeks to obtain summary adjudication of the emotional distress damages
pled within the 6th-17th and 22nd causes of action.
The adjudication of damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision
(f)(1), is limited to punitive damages:
Accordingly, the current version of the statute, like the former version, contains parallel independent and dependent clauses which must be read together. Thus, when the independent clause is read in conjunction with its corresponding qualifying clause, the statute provides that a party may move for summary adjudication as to “one or more claims for damages” if that party contends that “there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code.” The reference to “one or more claims for damages” in the first part of the sentence is thus still qualified by, and limited to, punitive damages. We submit that there is no other reasonable interpretation of the sentence which gives effect to all of its words....
We also conclude that in order to give effect to the first sentence of subdivision (f)(1), the second sentence must also be read in conjunction with the first sentence, so that the reference to “a claim for damages” must be qualified as referring to the previously defined claim for punitive damages.
(DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court (Initial Amalgamation, Ltd.) (1996)
47 Cal.App.4th 410, 421.) Summary adjudication is not permitted of any single item of
compensatory damages that does not dispose of an entire cause of action. (Id. at p. 422.)
Thus, Defendant CFD’s Motion to adjudicate emotional distress damages is not a proper
motion for summary adjudication under section 437c, subdivision (f)(1).
The Court could adjudicate emotional distress damages only if the parties complied with
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (t). This requires a joint stipulation requesting
adjudication, judicial authorization to file the motion, and an explicit declaration in the motion
citing subdivision (t). Because the parties did not follow this procedure, subdivision (t) does not
apply.
III. CONCLUSION Defendant CFD’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Emotional Distress Damages is
DENIED. 1 This is not a proper topic for summary adjudication under Code of Civil Procedure
section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) [DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior Court
(Initial Amalgamation, Ltd.) (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 410, 421-22].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court
1 Considering the merits of the motion are not considered, the evidentiary objections filed by Plaintiff and Defendant have not been considered; the are MOOT.