Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 23STCV03919, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03919    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Hearing Date:             January 4, 2024

Case Name:                Johnson v. Help/Systems, LLC

Case No.:                    23STCV03919

Motion:                       Motion to Strike

Moving Party:             Defendant Help/Systems, LLC

Opposing Party:          Plaintiff Curtis Johnson

            In this employment case, Plaintiff Curtis Johnson (Plaintiff) sues Defendant Help/Systems, LLC (Defendant) for PAGA violations arising under the Labor Code.

            Defendant moves to strike Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, lines 12-13, and issue an order reducing the PAGA period by 245 days. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

            The motion to strike is denied.

Legal Standard

            “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)  “Immaterial” or “irrelevant” matters include allegations not essential to the claim, allegations neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(1)-(3).)

Discussion

            Defendant requests that this Court strike lines 12- 13 of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and issue an order reducing the PAGA period by 245 days pursuant to Rule of Court 3.110, subdivision (b), and Government Code section 68608, subdivision (b).           

            Rule 3.110(b) of the California Rules of Court provides: “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” Under Rule 3.110(f), "[i]f a party fails to serve and file pleadings as required under this rule, and has not obtained an order extending time to serve its pleadings, the court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall not be imposed."

            Further, Government Code section 68608, subdivision (b) recognizes that: “Judges shall have all the powers to impose sanctions authorized by law, including the power to dismiss actions or strike pleadings, if it appears that less severe sanctions would not be effective after taking into account the effect of previous sanctions or previous lack of compliance in the case. Judges are encouraged to impose sanctions to achieve the purposes of this article.”

            Here, Defendant argues that a reduction in the PAGA period is warranted as result of Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the Complaint.

            The Complaint alleges that, on July 11, 2022, Plaintiff sent a PAGA Notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). (Brackett Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B [Complaint ¶ 8].) On the same day, Plaintiff also filed his Class Action Complaint against Defendant in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 22STCV21858. (Brackett Decl., ¶ 2.)

On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff mailed his PAGA letter to Defendant's address of record listed on the California Secretary of State website. (Brackett Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. D.) Defendant claims it was in the process of changing it address of record at this time and did not receive actual notice of this letter.

            On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed this PAGA action (although Plaintiff was able to serve his PAGA Complaint as early as September 14, 2022 – 65 days after filing the LWDA letter on July 11, 2022). (Brackett Decl., ¶ 4.)

            Based on the Proof of Service filed, Plaintiff purportedly personally served Defendant with the Complaint on March 8, 2023. (Brackett Decl., ¶ 6.) However, Defendant contends that this Proof of Service contained an address for service of process that was for a separate and inactive entity. (Brackett Decl., ¶ 6.) That is, Plaintiff’s service was improper.

            On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a Notice of Acknowledgement and Receipt to counsel for Defendant. (Brackett Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant returned the Notice of Acknowledgement and Receipt on August 23, 2023. (Brackett Decl., ¶ 9.) Accordingly, service of this Complaint was not complete until August 23, 2023 – six months after the filing of the Complaint and more than one year after Plaintiff allegedly filed the PAGA letter with the LWDA. (Brackett Decl., ¶¶ 3, 10.)

            Here, Defendant acknowledges the severity of requesting dismissal for the failure to comply with Rule 3.110(b) and, instead, requests a lesser sanction of reducing the PAGA period by 245 days to account for the delay in serving Defendant with the Complaint.

            In arguing this sanction is justified, Defendant argues it has been prejudiced by the delay. According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s delay has resulted in an increased scope of Plaintiff’s claims and an increase in the resulting liability to Defendant.

            Defendant’s prejudice argument is not well taken. Defendant presents no evidence that the delay has caused harm to Defendant’s ability to mount a defense and prepare its case; that is, there is no argument that any evidence has been lost. Rather, the delay – according to the allegations – has caused more harm to Plaintiff and other similarly situated parties – in the form of injuries resulting from Defendant’s allegedly unlawful Labor Code practices. In essence, Defendant argues they have been harmed because they were allowed to continue their unlawful conduct.

            This argument is not well taken, especially in light of the service of the PAGA Notice letter. Plaintiff appears to have properly provided notice of the PAGA claim by sending the required written notice to Defendant by certified mail to the two addresses of record, including the address of record listed as 11095 Viking Drive, Suite 100, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, which is Defendant’s current principal address. (Gomez Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. B-C.) That Defendant claims it did not receive this letter because it was in the process of changing its address is of no fault of Plaintiff.

            Further, Plaintiff attempted to properly serve Defendant on March 8, 2024 using the same address that successfully served the Class Action case. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. G.) Plaintiff had no reason believe that Defendant was not served until service issues were raised by Defendant in July 2023. (Gomez Decl., ¶¶ 10-11.)

            Defendant has not identified any conduct that warrants sanctioning.

Conclusion

            The Motion to Strike is denied.