Amber Schulte vs Bruce Savett et al

Case Number

25CV01270

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 07/28/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrer; (7) Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

Amber Schulte v. Bruce Savett, et al.

Case No. 25CV01270

           

Hearing Date: July 28, 2025                                                   

HEARING:              (1)       Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration

                             (2)       Defendants’ Demurrer to Complaint

                                    (3)       Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Savett to Form Interrogatories—Employment

                                    (4)       Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Granite Capital Group to Form Interrogatories—Employment

                                    (5)       Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendants to Requests for Production of Documents

                                    (6)       Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Granite Capital Group to Special Interrogatories

                                    (7)       Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Savett to Form Interrogatories—General

                                    (8)       Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Savett to Requests for Admission

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Amber Schulte: R. Chris Kroes, Lini Elias Wheelock, John R. Weninger, McCarthy & Kroes

                                    For Defendants Bruce Savett and Granite Capital Group: Vickie V. Grasu, Kyle M. Aronson, O’Hagan Meyer

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

(1)       Based upon plaintiff’s filing of a first amended complaint, the demurrer to the original complaint is moot and is ordered off calendar. Absent further order of the court, defendants shall not be required to file any responsive pleading to the first amended complaint until 10 court days following the disposition of their petition to compel arbitration.

(2)       All other motions now on calendar, including the petition to compel arbitration, are continued to August 25, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.

(3)       On or before August 11, 2025, plaintiff Amber Schulte shall file and serve a supplemental brief to the petition to compel arbitration, addressing only the issues raised in or by the declaration of Lisa Bauer filed on July 21, 2025. On or before August 18, 2025, defendants shall file and serve a supplemental brief to the petition to compel arbitration, addressing only the issues raised in or by plaintiff’s supplemental brief, and not including any new evidence.

Background:

On February 27, 2025, plaintiff Amber Schulte filed her original complaint in this action alleging eight causes of action: (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.); (2) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (5) workplace harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) defamation; (7) breach of implied in fact contract; and (8) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The first through fifth causes of action are asserted against defendants Bruce Savett and Granite Capital Group (Granite); the sixth cause of action is asserted against Savett only; the seventh and eighth causes of action are asserted against Granite only.

On April 4, 2025, as stated in the declaration of attorney Chris Kroes, plaintiff served on each of the defendants a first set of requests for production of documents (RFP).

On April 9, 2025, as stated in the Kroes declarations, plaintiff served on each of defendants first sets of form interrogatories (Employment Law) (FI-EL). Plaintiff also served first sets of form interrogatories (General) (FI) and special interrogatories (SI) on Granite, and a first set of requests for admission (RFA) on Savett.

On April 21, 2025, defendants filed their demurrer to the complaint and a petition to compel arbitration. Both the demurrer and petition are before the court at this hearing.

On April 25, 2025, plaintiff filed opposition to the petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiff, in the opposition and supporting papers, objects to the arbitration agreement proffered by defendants as inadmissible, and argues that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable.

On May 6, 2025, as stated in the respective Kroes declarations, defendants served, by electronic service, responses to the RFP. The responses consisted entirely of objections.

On May 13, 2025, as stated in the respective Kroes declarations, defendants served, by electronic service, responses to the FI-EL, SI, FI, and RFA. The responses consisted entirely of objections.

On May 23, 2025, plaintiff filed two motions to compel further responses, one with respect to each of the FI-EL served on each defendant.

On May 30, 2025, plaintiff filed an additional three discovery motions: (i) a motion to compel further responses to the RFP from defendants; (ii) a motion to compel further responses to the SI from Granite; and (iii) a motion to compel further responses to the FI from Savett.

On June 3, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to the RFA from Savett. All motions to compel are before the court at this hearing.

On July 14, 2025, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC). The FAC asserts the same eight causes of action as the original complaint.

On July 15, 2025, defendants filed opposition to the motions to compel.

On July 17, 2025, plaintiff filed an omnibus reply to defendants’ opposition to the motions to compel.

On July 21, 2025, defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition to the petition to compel arbitration, a reply to plaintiff’s evidentiary objections, and the declaration of Lisa Bauer, the Director of Compliance Services, providing information regarding the arbitration agreement included with defendants’ petition.

On July 22, 2025, plaintiffs filed a request to strike the declaration of Bauer and other matter filed in reply to the petition to compel arbitration. Also on July 22, defendants filed a response to the request to strike.

Analysis:

(1)       Demurrer

Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint. The demurrer to the original complaint is therefore moot and will be ordered off calendar.

(2)       Petition to Compel Arbitration

As the above procedural history indicates, in the opposition, plaintiff challenged the authenticity of the proffered arbitration agreement. Defendants have addressed that issue with evidence submitted in reply.

“The general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers. This principle is most prominent in the context of summary judgment motions, which is not surprising, given that it is a common evidentiary motion. ‘[T]he inclusion of additional evidentiary matter with the reply should only be allowed in the exceptional case …’ and if permitted, the other party should be given the opportunity to respond. [Citations.]” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538.)

The reply evidence here addresses both the evidentiary foundational issues raised by plaintiff and the substantive issue of consent to the arbitration agreement disputed by plaintiff (see Schulte decl., ¶¶ 2-5). The court will consider the evidence presented in reply, but will give plaintiff an opportunity to respond to this evidence.

The hearing on the petition to compel arbitration will be continued to allow such a response.

(3)       Motions to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

Because the court’s disposition of the petition to compel arbitration may affect its disposition of the motions to compel, the motions to compel will also be continued.