Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 24SMCV01221, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV01221 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 205
|
JORGE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. TRADER JOES COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.:
24SMCV01221 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: DefendanT’s DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT |
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Trader Joes
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff
Jorge Rodriguez
BACKGROUND
This
is a breach of contract and tortious breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing case. On or about March
2, 2022, Plaintiff Jorge Rodriguez was a member of supervision for Trader Joes who
coordinated a “tasting” of a new whiskey at the end of the shift. (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7.) Plaintiff alleges tastings of this kind were
a normal occurrence at Trader Joes as employees were expected to be able to
recommend alcohol choices when asked by customers. (Compl. ¶ 9.)
On or about March 14, 2022, Plaintiff’s employment was terminated on the
grounds that he arranged a “tasting” that was not permitted by Trader Joes and
that he also made an employee feel “uncomfortable” after the tasting. (Compl. ¶ 10.)
This hearing is on Defendant’s demurrer to
the Complaint. Defendant argues that the
Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for
breach of contract and/or breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. Defendant also seeks to strike
portions of the Complaint, specifically for “attorney’s fees and expenses” and
Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of
the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235
Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be
used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under
attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co.
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not
consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not
accepted for the truth of their contents).)
For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint
are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of
conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962,
967.)
Leave to amend must be allowed where there is
a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy
(1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to
amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by
amendment”); Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency
(2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 (“A demurrer should not be sustained without
leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of
action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can
be cured by amendment.”).) The burden is
on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended
successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
DISCUSSION
Breach of Contract
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s breach of
contract cause of action fails because he claims his employment was indefinite
(Compl. ¶ 13(a)), which does not meet the legal requirement for a specified
term contract as required. Furthermore, Defendant
argues that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding an “express and implied in fact
employment contract” are unclear and do not specify whether there is one
contract or multiple contracts, and whether they are oral, written, or implied.
(Compl. ¶¶ 13-24.) Plaintiff fails to provide the terms of the
alleged contract verbatim, attach a copy of the contract, or sufficiently plead
its legal effect. Defendant points out
that essential terms like payment amount, payment due date, contract formation
date, and breach date are missing. Additionally,
Plaintiff does not identify the individual at Trader Joe’s who allegedly
entered into the employment contract with him, preventing Trader Joe’s from
determining if that individual had the authority to bind the company. Defendant states that since claims for breach
of written contracts are subject to a four-year statute of limitation and oral
contracts have a two-year limitation, clarifying the nature and breach date of
the contract might show the claim is time-barred.
The Court agrees with Defendant’s arguments
and finds that the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the necessary facts
to support a breach of contract claim.
Plaintiff does not address these deficiencies pointed out by Defendant
in his opposition. Thus, the Court
SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the breach of contract claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Case
Defendant
argues that the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
fails to state a claim because it does not plead sufficient facts. Allegations must show that the defendant’s
conduct was a conscious and deliberate act that unfairly frustrated the
contract’s purposes, not just an honest mistake, bad judgment, or negligence. (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific
Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1395.) Defendant states that the second cause of
action relies on the same acts as the breach of contract claim and does not
delineate any additional actions by Defendant. It also does not seek different or additional
remedies.
Here, the Complaint does not provide any
additional allegations to support this calim that were not already claimed in
the breach of contract claim. Thus, the
Court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Motion to Strike
Defendant seeks to strike Plaintiff’s request
for attorney’s fees and punitive damages, however, given the Court’s sustaining
of the demurrer, the motion to strike is moot.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court SUSTAINS
Defendant’s demurrer WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court also DENIES Defendant’s
motion to strike.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 16, 2023 ___________________________
Edward
B. Moreton, Jr.
Judge
of the Superior Court