Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00370/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00370-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

HUNTER V. CARELOCK, CASE NO. 2:08-CV-00370 (JAM)(GGH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PAGE 1 OF 3 

LA #4847-9954-4325 v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Raymond E. Hane, III, SBN 149960 

Kimberly Carter, SBN 221283 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 

444 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, Suite 2400 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 236-2719 

Facsimile: (213) 236-2700 

E-mail: RHane@bwslaw.com

 KCarter@bwslaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants, 

INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. 

and CARL CARELOCK 

Jenny C. Huang, SBN 223596 

Sarita I. Ordóñez, SBN 216047 

JUSTICE FIRST LLP 

2831 Telegraph Avenue 

Oakland, CA 94609 

Telephone: (510) 628-0695 

Facsimile: (510) 272-0711 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Deborah Hunter 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEBORAH HUNTER, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CARL CARELOCK, 

INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 2:08-CV-00370-JAM-GGH 

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Judge: The Honorable John A. Mendez 

Date: 9:30am on April 7, 2010 

Location: Courtroom 6, 14th Floor 

Plaintiff Deborah Hunter brought this action against Defendants Inter-Con Security 

Systems, Inc. (“Inter-Con”) and Carl Carelock alleging, among other things, sexual harassment 

and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et 

seq.) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.). By motion 

filed on March 10, 2010, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s causes of 

action. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-00370-JAM-GGH Document 97 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 3
HUNTER V. CARELOCK, CASE NO. 2:08-CV-00370 (JAM)(GGH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PAGE 2 OF 3 

LA #4847-9954-4325 v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact on all of Plaintiff’s causes of 

action against Defendant Inter-Con thus precluding summary judgment in favor of Inter-Con. 

Similarly, there are genuine issues of material fact on Plaintiff’s causes of action against 

Defendant Carelock for sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment in violation of 

the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.) (Fifth and 

Sixth Causes of Action), thus precluding summary judgment in favor of Mr. Carelock on 

Plaintiff’s Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action. 

Plaintiff agreed that dismissal of her causes of action arising under Title VII against Mr. 

Carelock (i.e. her First Cause of Action for sexual harassment under Title VII, her Second Cause 

of Action for sexually hostile work environment under Title VII, and her Third Cause of Action 

for Retaliation under Title VII) is appropriate.

1

 Plaintiff also agreed to dismiss her Seventh 

Cause of Action against Mr. Carelock for retaliation in violation of the California Fair 

Employment and Housing Act (Cal.Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.) Accordingly, the Court grants 

summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First, Second, Third and Seventh Causes of Action against Mr. 

Carelock only. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Ninth Cause of Action for Interference with Employment 

Relations, which was brought solely against Mr. Carelock, is not a legally viable theory of 

recovery against Mr. Carelock. Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal.3d 1, 23-25 (1990). The Court 

grants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Ninth Cause of Action against Mr. Carelock. 

Based upon the oral arguments of counsel at the hearing on April 7, 2010, the papers 

submitted in support of and in opposition to Defendants’ motion, and all other pleadings and 

papers filed in this action, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action 

is DENIED as to Defendant Inter-Con and GRANTED as to Defendant Carelock. 

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Second Cause of 

Action is DENIED as to Defendant Inter-Con and GRANTED as to Defendant Carelock. 

 

1 Defendants’ Motion sought dismissal of the Fourth Cause of Action as against Mr. Carelock on these same 

grounds; however, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint did not name Mr. Carelock as a Defendant on the Fourth 

Cause of Action. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-00370-JAM-GGH Document 97 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 3
HUNTER V. CARELOCK, CASE NO. 2:08-CV-00370 (JAM)(GGH)

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PAGE 3 OF 3 

LA #4847-9954-4325 v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action 

is DENIED as to Defendant Inter-Con and GRANTED as to Defendant Carelock. 

4. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action 

against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 

5. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action 

is DENIED as to both Defendants. 

6. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action 

is DENIED as to both Defendants. 

7. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of 

Action is DENIED as to Defendant Inter-Con and GRANTED as to Defendant Carelock. 

8. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Cause of Action 

against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 

9. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Ninth Cause of Action 

against Defendant Carelock is GRANTED. 

10. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Tenth Cause of Action 

against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 

11. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Eleventh Cause of 

Action against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 

12. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Twelfth Cause of 

Action against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 

13. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Thirteenth Cause of 

Action against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 

14. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Cause of 

Action against Defendant Inter-Con is DENIED. 

Dated: April 21, 2010 

 /s/ John A. Mendez___________ 

 The Honorable John A. Mendez 

 United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-00370-JAM-GGH Document 97 Filed 04/22/10 Page 3 of 3