This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Disability Discrimination
Elder Abuse

Harold C. Sivas v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc., Ashley Jones, Liz Torres

Published: Oct. 18, 2019 | Result Date: Sep. 3, 2019 |

Case number: 1:19-cv-00537-LJO-BAM Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Lawrence J. O'Neill

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Brian N. Folland
(The Folland Law Group)


Defendant

Casey M. Curran
(Jackson Lewis PC)

Nathan W. Austin
(Jackson Lewis PC)


Facts

Dr. Harold Sivas, an optometrist, filed suit against Luxottica Retail North America Inc., Ashley Jones, and Liz Torres in relation to his treatment while subleasing space from Luxottica in two Target Optical retail stores in Clovis and Fresno. Jones and Torres worked as the Manager and District Manager of Target Optical in Clovis.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Sivas contended that he was subjected to adverse employment actions, and defendants directed his business to other optometrists due to his Parkinson's disease. Sivas alleged defendants' actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and defendants committed elder abuse by utilizing undue influence in depriving him of substantial income. Sivas also claimed that defendants' actions constituted intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations and moved to dismiss. Defendants alleged Sivas conceded he was not employed by Luxottica, his elder abuse claim failed to allege financial abuse as required, and his intentional interference claim failed to allege disruption with his relationship with Luxottica.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the sublease agreement between Sivas and Luxottica evidenced a landlord-tenant relationship rather than an employer-employee relationship, so his ADA claim failed. Further, the court found Sivas failed to allege the taking of real or personal property as required for his elder abuse claim to stand. Lastly, the court determined the intentional interference claim failed because Luxottica cannot be charged with interfering with its own relationship with Sivas.


#133225

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390