Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV14354, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14354    Hearing Date: September 10, 2024    Dept: 52

Demurrers by Defendants (1) Michael R. Jones and Laura Survant & (2) Priya Uppuluri and Eman G. Youssef

            Defendants Michael R. Jones and Laura Survant jointly demur to plaintiff Payam Benyamini’s complaint.  Defendants Priya Uppuluri and Eman G. Youssef also jointly demur to the complaint for the same reasons.

            Plaintiff did not oppose the demurrers.  Plaintiff did, however, file a first amended complaint on September 3, 2024, to add a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).  PAGA provides an exception to the general rules prohibiting plaintiffs from amending a complaint fewer than nine court days before the hearing on a demurrer.  (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (a)(2)(C).)  The first amended complaint has no substantive changes other than adding a new cause of action under PAGA.  For the sake of judicial economy, the court will treat defendants’ demurrers as demurrers to the first amended complaint. 

The first amended complaint is fatally uncertain as to all four demurring defendants.  A complaint is subject to a demurrer for uncertainty if it “is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.”  (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.)  A complaint must sufficiently apprise defendants of the claims against them.  (Ibid.)

The first amended complaint fails to apprise these four defendants of the basis for any claims against them.  The first amended complaint alleges 15 causes of action, each against “all defendants and Does 1 through 100.”  The first amended complaint names as defendants one nonprofit corporation and six individuals.  The pleading only mentions the four demurring defendants by name twice.  First, in the caption.  (FAC, p. 1.)  Second, it lists them all, along with the two other individual defendants who have not demurred, followed by conclusory allegations that they all “(1) exercised control over Plaintiff's wages, hours, and/or working conditions; (2) caused Plaintiff to suffer or permit to work; and/or (3) had an ‘at-will’ employment relationship with Plaintiff.”  (FAC, ¶ 2.)  All remaining allegations that refer to the four demurring defendants do so via the plural “defendants”—meaning one nonprofit corporation, six individuals, and 100 Does. 

These vague allegations make it impossible for the demurring defendants to understand what plaintiff alleges any of them did, if anything.  They cannot reasonably respond to the first amended complaint.  Plaintiff does not even allege facts stating these defendants had any relationship with the entity for which plaintiff worked.   

            Furthermore, several of plaintiff’s causes of action are only available against employers—not individual supervisors or agents of employers.  (Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 901 [wrongful termination in violation of public policy]; Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1160 [FEHA]; Mewawalla v. Middleman (N.D. Cal. 2022) 601 F.Supp.3d 574, 608 [whistleblower retaliation].)  The first amended complaint relies on the same uncertain allegations described above and on conclusory alter ego allegations about all “defendants.”  The first amended complaint does not allege sufficient facts to constitute any cause of action against the four demurring defendants.

Disposition

            Defendants Michael R. Jones and Laura Survant’s demurrer to the first amended complaint is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend.             

Defendants Priya Uppuluri and Eman G. Youssef’s demurrer to the first amended complaint is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend.