Alatraqchi v. Metro Cab CA1/5

Filed 12/12/14 Alatraqchi v. Metro Cab CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

RASHID ALATRAQCHI, Plaintiff and Appellant, A140578 v. METRO CAB, LLC, et al., (San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. CGC-11-516342) Defendants and Respondents.

Rashid Alatraqchi appeals from a judgment entered against him and in favor of defendants Metro Cab, LLC (Metro Cab) and its owner, Richard Hybels (collectively Defendants), following a bench trial. Alatraqchi fails completely to demonstrate error, and we affirm. BACKGROUND Apparently Alatraqchi was a taxi driver with Metro Cab and was terminated at some point.1 He filed a “Civil Rights” complaint against Defendants on December 5, 2011. The complaint is not in the record, and we do not know what causes of action were pled. Alatraqchi filed a first amended complaint on July 5, 2012, which also is not in the record. Defendants moved for summary judgment. On May 3, 2013, Judge Peter Busch denied summary judgment and granted in part a motion for summary adjudication. No

1 We say apparently because Alatraqchi, who appeared pro se in the trial court and who represents himself here, provides very little of the record of proceedings below and cites to none of it in his briefing. Defendants’ briefing also is singularly unhelpful in providing any factual context for this matter.

1

pleadings, minutes, or interim orders are provided. On July 22, 2013, the matter was assigned to trial before Judge Ernest Goldsmith. Alatraqchi did not demand a jury, and Defendants waived jury on October 16, 2013. Defendants’ trial counsel indicated that the only causes of action remaining for decision after the earlier summary adjudication ruling were “Causes No. 3 and 6, harassment on the basis of national origin and religion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Judge Goldsmith, with the benefit of a complete record, agreed. Alatraqchi presented only his own testimony in support of his claims. He stated that he had been terminated by Hybels after a traffic accident, and that Hybels said that he did not like Alatraqchi or where Alatraqchi was from,2 calling Alatraqchi a “[f]ucking Muslim” and a “[f]ucking Arab[].” Alatraqchi testified that he suffered stress from his termination and that he was taking medications to help him sleep. At the close of Alatraqchi’s testimony, Defendants moved for nonsuit on the harassment cause of action on the basis that Alatraqchi had failed to file a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.3 Defendants also moved for nonsuit on the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that Alatraqchi had failed to show outrageous conduct by either Metro Cab or Hybels, and that Alatraqchi had failed to produce any evidence he had suffered severe emotional distress. The court took Defendants’ motions under submission. The Defendants called Metro Cab taxi drivers who were Muslims of Middle Eastern descent, all of whom testified that they had known Hybels for many years and never observed him engage in any discriminatory conduct. Hybels testified that he owned Metro Cab, leased a cab to Alatraqchi, and terminated Alatraqchi’s contract because Alatraqchi had too many accidents. Hybels denied making any derogatory comments to Alatraqchi about either his religion or his national origin, and denied yelling