The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO
[Doc. No. 66]
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO [Doc. No. 100]
Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary adjudication as to VTS [Doc No. 66] and Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication as to alter ego [Doc. No. 100]. On January 29, 2013 the Court held oral argument on the motions.*fn1 Kathleen M. Hartman, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff. Douglas Jaffe, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants' motion is DENIED and the Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff Jeannette Clark was employed at Dana Woody & Associates, Inc. ("DWA") as a vocational rehabilitation counselor from 1993 until September 30, 2009. Defendant Dana Woody Brewer ("Brewer") owns DWA and is its sole officer. It is alleged that Brewer also owns two other businesses -- Tres Chic Boutique ("Tres Chic") and Veterans Transition Services, Inc. ("VTS"). Those entities are sued as alter egos of Brewer and DWA.
Plaintiff brings this action to recover wages, damages, penalties, interest, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees resulting from Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages, late payment of wages, payment of wages with dishonored checks, fraud, violations of ERISA in connection with Plaintiff's 401(k) account and healthcare account, and unfair business practices. [Doc. No. 3 at 1-2.]
B. Procedural Background.
On July 13, 2012, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication. [Doc. No. 74.] Among other things, the Court granted summary adjudication in favor of Plaintiff as to the eighth, ninth, eleventh and thirteenth causes of action, but only as to liability and only as to defendant DWA.
On June 25, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment/adjudication Defendant VTS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Doc. No. 66.] On January 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition under seal. [Doc. No. 113.] On January 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition under seal. [Doc. No. 121.] On January 18, 2013, Defendants filed a reply to the opposition. [Doc. No. 125.] On January 25, 2013, Defendants filed an opposition to the supplement under seal. [Doc. No. 144.]
On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication as to the alter ego claims under seal. [Doc. No. 100.] On January 11, 2013, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion under seal. [Doc. No. 123.] On January 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition under seal. [Doc. No. 142.]
Summary judgment/adjudication is proper only upon a the movant's showing "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(a). "Material," for purposes of Rule 56, means the fact, under governing substantive law, could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Cline v. Industrial Maintenance Engineering & Contracting CO., 200 F.3d 1223, 1229 (9th. Cir. 2000). For a dispute ...