Ramirez v. Butcher
Filed 8/14/06 Ramirez v. Butcher CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| SALLY RAMIREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JULIE BUTCHER et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B182958 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC317586) |
APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, County, Ernest Hiroshige, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Marla B. Hendrickson, Marla B. Hendrickson and Vincent Tien for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Robert F. Hunt for Defendants and Appellants.
_____________________
Sally Ramirez appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, a demurrer to her complaint for breach of employment contract and related torts against her former employer, the Service Employees International Union Local 347 (the union), and its principals Julie Butcher (the union's general manager) and Joaquin Avalos (a member of the union's executive board) (collectively the union parties). Ramirez contends the trial court erred in concluding her causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation and tortious interference with employment contract are preempted by the federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 401-531) (LMRDA). She also asserts the court erred in ruling it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her cause of action for interference with her employee-benefit plan in violation of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.) (ERISA).
The union parties filed a separate notice of appeal from a July 12, 2005 order vacating, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d),[1] an earlier dismissal of the action entered by the court clerk on December 9, 2004. Their notice of appeal also purports to appeal from the judgment to the extent it incorporates a prior order denying as moot their special motion to strike certain causes of action under section 425.16.[2]
We affirm the judgment and find the July 12, 2005 order was proper. We also conclude the union parties' purported appeal from the denial of their special motion to strike is untimely.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The Complaint
Ramirez's complaint alleges five causes of action relating to the termination of her employment: breach of a written employment contract (against the union and Butcher), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against the union and Butcher), defamation (against the union parties), interference with her health and pension benefits in violation of ERISA (against the union) and tortious interference with her employment contract (against Avalos).
According to the allegations in the complaint, Ramirez was employed by the union as a field representative from 1995 until June 2003, when she was fired.[3] In her first and second causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Ramirez alleges the union and Butcher sabotaged her work performance by failing to provide her with necessary materials and assistance and assigning her unduly burdensome duties. She also alleges the union and Butcher unfairly disciplined her and terminated her without good cause. In her third cause of action for defamation, she alleges that, in connection with the termination of her employment, the union parties published false reports she had been uncooperative as a field representative and had failed to perform her assignments. In her fourth cause of action for ERISA violations, Ramirez alleges the union terminated her employment to interfere with her right to her employee-benefit plan. In her fifth cause of action for interference with her employment contract, she alleges Avalos instigated her termination by falsely claiming she was responsible for his removal from the City of Santa Ana Employees Association Board, was not properly performing her job duties, was attempting to de-certify the union and was uncooperative and out of touch with the interests of her constituents and employer.
2. The Demurrer and Special Motion to Strike
The union parties filed a demurrer to the complaint and concurrently a special motion to strike the defamation and interference-with-contract causes of action under section 425.16. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Ramirez's cause of action for interference with her employee-benefit plan under ERISA and the remaining state-law claims, based on the termination of her employment, were preempted by LMRDA under Screen Extras Guild, Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1017 (Screen Extras). In light of its ruling sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, the trial court denied the special motion to strike as moot.
DISCUSSION
1. Timeliness of the Appeals
a. The trial court's orders
After the hearing on the union parties' demurrer and special motion to strike on November 4, 2004, the trial court took the matter under submission. On November 8, 2004 the trial court issued a written ruling sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend for the reasons stated in its written November 4, 2004 tentative ruling and denying as moot the special motion to strike. The order directed the court clerk to give the parties notice of its ruling via facsimile transmission; it did not direct any party to prepare a written order.[4]
On November 10, 2004 the union parties served Ramirez with a document entitled â€
