Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV27333, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27333    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 14

Lugo v. VEVO LLC, et al

Case Background

Plaintiff alleges that she was passed over for promotion, and ultimately fired, because she rejected the romantic advances of her immediate superior.

On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for (1) Discrimination, (2) Harassment, (3) FEHA Retaliation, (4) Failure to Prevent, (5) Labor Code § 1102.5 Retaliation, (6) Wrongful Termination, (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), (8) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention, (9) Unfair Competition, and (10) Declaratory Relief against Defendants Vevo LLC (“Vevo”), Jesse Judelman (“Judelman”), Andrea Zapata (“Zapata”), and DOES 1-20.

On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her seventh cause of action, without prejudice.

            No trial date has yet been set.

(1)       Demurrer

            Defendants now demur to the second and tenth causes of action in the Complaint on the grounds that the facts alleged are insufficient to support those claims.

Decision

            The demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 10 days leave to amend.

Second Cause of Action: Harassment

            As pled, this cause of action is uncertain, for two reasons. First, Plaintiff pleads that she was harassed based on her sex or gender, and that she was harassed based on race. These are two distinct factual theories, which should be separated into two different causes of action so that they can be evaluated separately.

            Second, Plaintiff’s actual pleading of this cause of action, at paragraphs 51-61 of the Complaint, simply recites the elements of a FEHA harassment claim. Plaintiff needs to identify which of the individual facts in her story (told in detail in paragraphs 17-34) support this claim. It is not enough to tell a general factual story, then say ‘there’s a harassment claim in there somewhere.’

Tenth Cause of Action: Declaratory Relief

            Only Defendants Judelman and Zapata demur to this cause of action. The parties treat this claim as derivative of the second cause of action. Given that that claim is uncertain, this one is too.