Motion: Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

Tentative Ruling: Ronin’s motion is granted in part; Crane’s motion is denied.

Plaintiff Vanessa Rodriguez filed this action against Defendants Crane Co. and Ronin Staffing LLC. Against both Defendants, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for negligence (6th), negligent misrepresentation (9th) and promissory estoppel (12th). Against Ronin, Plaintiff also alleges a cause of action for violation of Civ. Code §1812.508 (8th). Defendants each move for summary judgment or adjudication.

Evidence –

For both motions: Plaintiff objects to the Shillair declaration; all objections are overruled. Plaintiff objects to the McMorris declaration; all objections are overruled. Plaintiff objects to the Avina declaration; all objections are overruled.

For the Crane motion: Defendant requests judicial notice of two court rulings; the RJN is granted. Defendant objects to the Rodriguez declaration; objections 4, 12 & 14 are sustained and all others are overruled. Defendant objects to the Gerber declaration; objection 17 is sustained and all others are overruled.

Civ. Code §1812.508 (8th COA) –

In the 8th COA Plaintiff alleges that Ronin violated Civ. Code §1812.508, which prohibits false and misleading statements by an “employment agency.” Civ. Code §1812.501(a)(1)(A) defines an “employment agency” as a business which charges a fee “to be paid directly or indirectly by a jobseeker.” Ronin contends that §1812.508 does not apply, because its fee was paid entirely by Crane and there is no evidence that Plaintiff was charged any fee for Ronin’s services.

In opposition, Plaintiff provides no evidence that she paid any kind of fee. Instead, Plaintiff argues that her fee was paid “indirectly” through the amounts paid by Crane. This argument has no merit. There is no dispute that the entire fee was paid by Crane; while Crane’s fee was based upon Plaintiff’s earnings, none of it was paid by Plaintiff. The Act is designed to regulate employment agencies retained and compensated by the jobseeker, and not the employer. The motion is granted for the 8th COA.

Negligence (6th COA), Negligent Misrepresentation (9th COA) & Promissory Estoppel (12th COA) –

In the 6th, 9th and 12th causes of action, Plaintiff challenges pre-hiring promises and representations that were jointly made by Crane and Ronin. Plaintiff contends that the representations were false, she relied on the representations and quit her job to commence work, and then Ronin and Crane withdrew her job and caused her damages. In their motions Crane and Ronin have made a number of arguments in support of summary adjudication, but none of them have merit.

Crane and Ronin both argue that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1998) 47 Cal.3d 654, which limits the nature of claims that can be asserted for wrongful termination of employment. Foley is inapposite. The 6th, 9th and 12th COAs do not challenge the termination of Plaintiff’s employment; they challenge pre-hiring promises and representations that were made to Plaintiff.

Crane and Ronin both argue that Plaintiff cannot recover on her claims, because she ultimately signed documents which stated that her employment was subject to Crane’s approval and would be on a temporary, at-will basis. This argument has no merit. Plaintiff’s claims challenge misrepresentations that were made before Plaintiff signed the documents, and the documents contain no integration clause that would bar evidence of prior misrepresentations.

Crane and Ronin also argue that Plaintiff cannot recover on her claims because they did not owe her a duty, they did not make any misrepresentations of fact, they did not make a clear and enforceable promise, Plaintiff did not reasonably rely on any statements made to her, their conduct was reasonable, and their conduct was justified. There are disputed issues of material fact as to all of these matters. Plaintiff has asserted a viable theory of recovery, based upon the withdrawal of employment before the employee commences work. E.g. Sheppard v. Morgan (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 61. In opposing these motions, Plaintiff has presented evidence which raises triable issues as to each element of her claims and each defense asserted by Defendants.

Ruling –

Ronin’s motion is granted as to Issues 5 and 6 relating to the 8th COA; it is otherwise denied. Crane’s motion is denied.