Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV13762, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13762    Hearing Date: June 4, 2025    Dept: 74

Serrato v. Dove Interiors, Inc. et al.

Defendants Dove Interiors, Inc. and Treasure Drywall’s Demurrer with Motion to Strike

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a disability discrimination and wrongful termination action.

Plaintiff Julio Cesar Madrigal Serrato (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against his employers Dove Interiors, Inc. and Treasure Drywall (collectively Defendants).  On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC).

Defendants demur to the FAC. 

DISCUSSION

Demurrer

            Defendants demur to the Second and Eleventh Causes of Action on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

            Hostile Work Environment Harassment on the Basis of Disability

            The elements of a cause of action for hostile work environment are (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected class, (2) plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome harassment, (3) the harassment was based on plaintiff’s protected status, (4) harassment unreasonably interfered with plaintiff’s work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment and (5) defendants are liable for the harassment.  (Ortiz v. Dameron Hospital Assn. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 568, 581.) 

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendants both directly and indirectly employed Plaintiff.  (FAC ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff suffered from a disability, a protected class.  (FAC ¶ 12.)  Plaintiff alleges that in 2021, he complained about being paid regular rate for overtime work.  (FAC ¶ 13.)  In 2022, Plaintiff complained twice about unsafe working conditions.  (FAC ¶ 13.)  In response to these complaints, Defendant’s employee stated that “This is the way the company pays” and “You have to work this way.”  (FAC ¶ 13.)  These interactions occurred prior to Plaintiff’s April 2022 injury which caused his disability.  (FAC ¶ 13.)  After Plaintiff’s disabling event, Plaintiff attempted to remain in contact with his supervisor regarding his injury only to receive silence.  (FAC ¶ 14.)  When Plaintiff attempted to return to work, his supervisor did not respond.  (FAC ¶ 14.)  These allegations are not sufficient to constitute harassment based on Plaintiff’s protected status as disabled because the alleged statements and actions occurred before Plaintiff became disabled and were unrelated to disability status.  Defendants’ silence after Plaintiff left the work due to his injury could not have interfered with his work because Plaintiff was never allowed to return to work.  Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the Second Cause of Action.

            Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

            The elements of an Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress cause of action are (1) outrageous conduct by defendant, (2) intentional or reckless causing of emotional distress, (3) severe emotional distress and (4) causation.  (Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1259.)

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct, outlined above, caused severe emotional distress, including humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain.  (FAC ¶ 97.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew their conduct would devastate Plaintiff.  (FAC ¶ 95.)

            Plaintiff clearly articulates displeasing actions, but the comments from Plaintiff’s supervisor and the failure to facilitate Plaintiff’s return to work are ultimately “common – though ultimately misguided – supervisory actions.”  (Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 102.)  Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the Eleventh Cause of Action.

Amend

            The Court shall liberally grant leave to amend.  (Goodman, supra, 18 Cal.3d at pp. 348.)  Plaintiff requests leave to amend the complaint.  Although Plaintiff does not allege additional facts in the Opposition that would supplement the FAC, the Court finds that additional details of the current allegations may be sufficient to remedy the defects.  Thus, under the policy of liberally granting leave to amend, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend both causes of action.

Strike

            Defendants seek to strike Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages.  Malice is defined as “conduct which is intended to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”  (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).)  Oppression is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.”  (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2).) 

            Plaintiff alleges that he raised safety concerns multiple times in which he was instructed to continue to operate machinery without proper safety equipment.  (FAC ¶ 13.)  Then, Plaintiff was injured because of the unsafe working conditions, causing Plaintiff to be disabled.  (FAC ¶ 13.)  Taking the allegations as true, this conduct rises to the malice standard.  Defendants’ requirement that Plaintiff work in unsafe conditions is sufficient to plead “despicable conduct” which when Plaintiff alerted his supervisor establishes a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s safety.  Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Strike.

CONCLUSION

            The Court sustains Defendants’ Demurrer to the Second and Eleventh Causes of Action with leave to amend.  The Court denies Defendants’ motion to strike.

            Defendants to give notice.