Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22AHCV00376, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00376    Hearing Date: October 10, 2022    Dept: 3

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – NORTHEAST District

Department 3

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Julian Fong, Shirley Fu-Chang, and Mega Bank

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff Yong Wu

Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint:

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Yong Wu (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action in June 2022 against Defendants Mega Bank, Julian Fong (“Fong”), and Shirley Fu-Chang (“Fu-Chang”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff is 65 years old. (Compl. ¶ 1.) He was employed at Mega Bank from November 2007 until he was terminated from his position as Controller and Vice President in April 2022. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16.) Plaintiff alleges retaliation following his having expressed his fears to bank management involving exposure to Covid at the workplace, Defendants’ willful disregard of those fears, and his having taken sick leave. The complaint asserts causes of action for (1) retaliation and harassment; (2) employment discrimination on the basis of age; (3) employment discrimination on the basis of disability; (4) hostile work environment; (5) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention; (6) defamation – libel and slander; and (7) unfair business practices.

Defendants demur to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth causes of action on the grounds that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) After Defendants filed their demurrer, Plaintiff dismissed the first cause of action as to individual defendants Fong and Fu-Chang, leaving Mega Bank the sole defendant for that cause of action. Additionally, on September 2, 2022, the court granted the special motion to strike the sixth cause of action for defamation as a SLAPP, making the demurrer to that cause of action moot. Also, Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ demurrer states Plaintiff intends to dismiss the third cause of action for disability discrimination. As to all other causes of action, the court finds that when one reads the complaint’s allegations liberally and as a whole – as one must when ruling on a demurrer – Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to state causes of action for retaliation and harassment by Mega Bank; employment discrimination based on age; hostile work environment; negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention; and, unfair business practices.

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is moot as to defendants Fong and Fu-Chang for the first cause of action and as to all defendants for the sixth cause of action. The court dismisses the third cause of action for disability discrimination without prejudice. The court overrules the remainder of the demurrer.

Defendants are ordered to file their answer within 20 days of this order.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 10, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court