Roxanne Coles v. Carpinteria Unified School District, et al

Case Number

22CV05100

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/28/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Defendant’s Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Roxanne Coles: Mansfield Collins

For Defendant Carpinteria Unified School District: Molly Thurmond, Cyrus Khosh-Chashm, MC Law Group

For Defendant Veronica Gallardo: Nicholas J. Street, Zimmer & Melton, LLP

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of Defendant Carpinteria Unified School District for judgment on the pleadings is ordered off-calendar.

Background

On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff Roxanne Coles filed a complaint in this matter alleging seven causes of action against Defendants Carpinteria Unified School District (the District) and Veronica Gallardo (Gallardo): (1) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of Government Code section 12940; (2) retaliation and harassment in violation of Government Code section 12940; (3) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (4) defamation; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) violation of Education Code regarding unlawful investigations and use of administrative leave; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, the Education Code, and the rules and regulations of the District. As alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint:

Plaintiff was employed by the District as an IA III intensive aide. Gallardo is also employed by the District. Since working with Gallardo starting on January 1, 2018, Plaintiff has been subjected to what Plaintiff asserts constitutes a hostile, racially discriminatory, harassing, and offensive working environment which included: denials of promotions, advancements, salary increases, and seniority rights; threats of layoffs; being forced to work out of class without compensation; defamatory language; involuntary transfers and constructive demotions; public disclosure of confidential or classified information; being paid lower wages than persons less qualified; nepotism; an unsafe job site; ignored requests for accommodations for medical conditions; false performance evaluations; wrongful termination; and the filing of false investigation statements and reports. The District failed to prevent the working conditions described above and in the complaint.

A special education meeting was held at Aliso Elementary on November 17, 2021, to go over “SPED” communication. Gallardo criticized, threatened, and forbade Plaintiff and others who shared concerns from continuing to do so. Gallardo also stated that Plaintiff would be fired and replaced and that Plaintiff’s role as an IA within the District was not important or necessary. As a result of this behavior, two complaints were filed against Gallardo including one by Plaintiff.

On November 18, 2021, Plaintiff was threatened by and falsely accused of assaulting Gallardo. On that date, Gallardo told Plaintiff to go home and not come back, and that Plaintiff would get a letter from the District’s human resources department. On November 20, 2021, Plaintiff received a letter from human resources placing Plaintiff on administrative leave for inappropriate conduct and falsely claiming that Plaintiff struck Gallardo’s arm on November 18, 2021.

On May 11, 2023, Gallardo filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting eighteen affirmative defenses.

On May 17, 2023, the District filed its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting thirty-one affirmative defenses.

On January 4, 2024, the District filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as to all causes of action alleged in the complaint and that Plaintiff has failed to allege a statutory basis for the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action alleged in the complaint. On January 10, 2024, Gallardo filed a notice of joinder in the District’s motion, in which Gallardo purports to “incorporate by reference” the present motion.

On January 24, 2024, the District filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion which was joined by Gallardo on the same date.

Also on January 24, 2024, Plaintiff late-filed her opposition to the District’s motion (the first-filed opposition), asserting that Plaintiff’s counsel was seeking ex parte relief for the late filing of opposition to the motion. Court records reflect that on the same date, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order continuing the hearing on the motion of the District (the ex parte application).

On January 26, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and continued the hearing on the present motion. (See Jan. 26, 2024, Order.) The Court further ordered that Plaintiff file and serve opposition to the motion electronically by noon on February 13, 2024, and that any reply to Plaintiff’s opposition be filed and served electronically by noon on February 20, 2024. (Ibid.)

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second opposition to the motion. The District filed its reply on February 20, 2024, which was joined by Gallardo on the same date.

Analysis

A Defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) Subject to exceptions not present here, at least 5 days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed, “the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subds. (a) & (a)(2).)

A party moving for judgment on the pleadings must also file and serve with the motion a declaration stating either “[t]he means by which the moving party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the claims raised by the motion for judgment on the pleadings” or “[t]hat the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the moving party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(3)(A) & (B).)

“If the parties are unable to meet and confer by that time, the moving party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, by filing and serving, on or before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be filed, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(2).)

In the first-filed opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the District did not seek out and conduct a meet and confer with Cole’s counsel. (See Jan. 24, 2024, Opp. at p. 5, l. 15.) In addition, the District has failed to file or serve with the moving papers the declaration required under Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a)(3). There exists no information demonstrating that the District complied with the mandatory requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a).

In addition, joining party Gallardo has failed to file the declaration required under Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a)(3).

The Court is not precluded from ordering a meet and confer conference at any time. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (c)(2) [“[t]his section does not prohibit the Court from ordering a conference on its own motion at any time”].) For all reasons discussed above, as the District and Gallardo have failed to file the required declaration, the Court will order the District’s motion off-calendar pending the completion of the meet and confer process set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 439. The Court’s ruling herein is without prejudice to the filing of a procedurally appropriate future motion for judgment on the pleadings.