Tentative Ruling: Andrea Spears vs. Health Net of California Inc

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1
                                   SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
                                          COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
                                                     CIVIL
                                    TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 29, 2019


EVENT DATE: 08/30/2019               EVENT TIME:       02:00:00 PM        DEPT.: 35
JUDICIAL OFFICER:


CASE NO.:       34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS

CASE TITLE: SPEARS VS. HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA INC


CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited                   CASE TYPE: Other employment


EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other - Complex

CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Notice - Other, 12/21/2018
Andrea Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. - Tomas R. Arana v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Defendant's Motion to Seal and Motions as to Why Arana's and Spear's Cases Should Not
Proceed As PAGA Representative Actions
Because of the nature of the motions on calendar for this case, the court will hold a hearing on them even
if neither party requests oral argument. Therefore it is not necessary to call the Court at (916) 874-7885
(Department 35) by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing. The court will allow telephone
appearances.


NOTICE:
Parties requesting services of a court reporter shall advise the Court at (916) 874-7885 no later than 4:00
p.m. the court day before the hearing. Please be advised there is a $30.00 fee for court reporting
services, which must be paid at the time of the hearing, for each civil proceeding lasting less than one
hour. (Govt. Code § 68086(a)(1)(A).)
The Court Reporter will not report any proceeding unless a request is made and the requisite fees are
paid in advance of the hearing.

TENTATIVE RULING
The Court grants HNCA's motion for an order sealing Exhibits A, B, and C to the Diane Rodes
declaration. The Court makes the findings required pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 that
as to the limited exhibits in this context (1) there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of
public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial
probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the
proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding
interest.
The Court also grants Plaintiff Spears' request for judicial notice.
The Court denies, on procedural grounds, Defendant HNCA's motions to as to why Spear's and Arana's
cases should not proceed as PAGA representative actions. The motions are not authorized by a
Event ID: 2448721                         TENTATIVE RULINGS                  Calendar No.:
                                                Page: 1
CASE TITLE: SPEARS VS. HEALTH NET OF CASE NUMBER: 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
              CALIFORNIA INC
statutory procedure that either provides the remedies requested or otherwise authorizes the Court to
now dismiss or adjudicate the PAGA claims. The Court denies the motion as to Arana's claims for these
reasons even though he has not filed an opposition.
The motions ask the court to consider evidence so they are clearly not demurrers or motions to strike.
They are also not filed as motions for summary judgment or adjudication and do not adhere to the
express requirements of existing statutory procedures under Code of Civil Procedure sections 437c,
438, and the like. They are also not motions at trial.
The only conceivable motion that might authorize such a motion would be a motion to strike the PAGA
claims. However these motions are not stated as such and neither side has had the opportunity to
address the reach of a motion to strike a PAGA claim. Therefore the court will not consider the motions
to be motions to strike and does not rule upon the applicability of such a motion to this case.
Furthermore, given the procedural status of this litigation, and the related rulings on the motions to
certify, the Court may not yet have sufficient information to dispose of the Plaintiff's PAGA claims upon
the ground of manageability or lack thereof.
Therefore the motions are denied.
The court will also request comments from counsel as to a suggested date for the next case
management conference. One topic for that conference would be a process for deciding the structure for
the rest of the case. That process could include a schedule for obtaining answers to some or all of the
following questions plus others that could be suggested by the parties. Those questions could be:
1. Is either side demanding a jury trial on the claims that remain in the case?
2. If so, which claims?
3. Does the court have the power to bifurcate or otherwise segment the trial of issues in this case?

4. If so, should the court first conduct a court trial of the claims that are made pursuant to Business and
Professions Code § 17200?
5. Could that trial itself be segmented between liability and damages?
6. Do the court's complex powers, including the powers discussed in Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3
Cal.App.4th 1367, allow the court to further conduct liability trials on specific claims, such as the
computer login claim, while deferring trial on some of the other claims?
7. Now that the scope of the certified claims has been established, and given the presence of the PAGA
claims, should the plaintiff be required to submit a trial plan that discusses in detail the plan for trying the
rest of the case?
8. If so, when should that be submitted and how long should defendant have to respond?




Event ID: 2448721                          TENTATIVE RULINGS                  Calendar No.:
                                                 Page: 2