Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Workstation Industries, Inc. v. Bezerra", Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

On 5/12/22, Defendant Jose Becerra (“Mr. Becerra”) filed a Cross-Complaint (the “XC”), attempting to assert an unspecified claim against Christine Capello.  On 6/1/22, Ms. Cappello (“Ms. Cappello”) filed a Demurrer as to the entire XC. 

Mr. Becerra has not filed an Opposition thereto. He instead filed a declaration on 8/24/22, attempting to supplement the allegations in the XC.  But submitting a declaration does not suffice to amend a defective pleading, and the allegations presented therein are insufficient to cure the defects in any event.

The Demurrer is SUSTAINED in full.  No causes of action are asserted in the XC, and no prayer for relief is presented. Nor do the assertions presented therein suffice to state any cognizable claim.

To the extent that the XC is attempting to assert claims for injuries resulting from his working conditions, the claims appear to be barred as a matter of law by the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule.  (See Lab. Code §3602(a) [where conditions of compensation set forth in §3600 concur, the right to recover compensation is, with limited exceptions, “the sole and exclusive remedy” of the employee against the employer], and Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 19 [workers' compensation jurisdiction may not be simply conferred or avoided at the option of the employee.].) That Mr. Becerra filed worker’s compensation claims related thereto supports this conclusion (RJN Exs. A – D). 

To the extent that the XC is attempting to assert claims for inadequate compensation, insufficient facts are stated to support the claim, such as what the terms of employment compensation were at the times alleged, and whether the claim is based on alleged violations of contractual terms or on some other basis. The nature of the claims as alleged are thus uncertain as pled. Nor does the XC articulate the basis for asserting the claims as to Ms. Cappello, rather than as to the identified employer. 

To the extent that the XC is attempting to assert a claim as to personal property, the XC fails to identify what property is at issue, how it came to be on the employer’s premises, whether a request to retrieve it was made, and whether such a request was refused.

The entire XC thus fails as pled. However, as this Demurrer is as to an original pleading, the Court will grant Mr. Becerra 15 days leave to amend.

Ms. Cappello’s unopposed Request for Judicial Notice, filed with the Demurrer, is GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(c), as to the existence of and legal effects of the records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Fowler v. Howell (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1750; Bell v. Greg Agee Constr., Inc. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 453, 459 fn. 2.)

Counsel for Ms. Capello is to give notice of this ruling.