Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV05323, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV05323, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05323 Hearing Date: March 27, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Becerra v. Pitbull Athletics, Case no. 24SMCV05323

Hearing date March 27, 2025

Defendant Pitbull’s Demurrer to the Complaint

Plaintiff Becerra’s Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff Becerra sues defendant Pitbull Athletics, LLC for misclassification, failure to pay meal and rest period compensation, failure to pay wages and overtime compensation and other alleged Labor Code and Bus. & Prof. Code violations. Plaintiff worked as a trainer at defendant’s gym. Defendant cross-complains for breach of contract and intentional interference, alleging plaintiff stole clients and accessed private client data.

Defendant demurs to the complaint; plaintiff moves for sanctions arguing defendant’s demurrer and cross-complaint are meritless.

Defendant Pitbull’s Demurrer to the Complaint

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts” Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, but plaintiff must allege essential facts “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.

Defendant argues the first, third, fourth, sixth and seventh claims are based in statutes that do not provide for a private cause of action and the eighth fails to allege sufficient facts per Code Civ. Proc. §430.10.

The first claim is for misclassification of employee per Cal. Lab. Code §226.8. Section 226.8 does not create a private cause of action independent of a Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) claim. Noe v. Superior Ct. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 316 at 337. Plaintiff does not bring the first claim as a PAGA action; demurrer SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

The third claim is for failure to pay meal and rest period compensation per Cal. Lab. Code §226.7. Cal. Lab. Code §218 states “[n]othing in this article shall limit the right of any wage claimant to sue directly or through an assignee for any wages or penalty due him under this article.” Meal and rest period compensation has been found to be a wage under California law. See Murphy vs. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094. A private cause of action exists and is properly pled. OVERRULED.

The fourth claim is for failure to pay earned wages per Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204, 206, 218.5 and 218.6. Section 218 states “[n]othing in this article shall limit the right of any wage claimant to sue directly or through an assignee for any wages or penalty due him under this article.” A private cause of action exists and is properly pled. OVERRULED.

The sixth claim is for failure to pay sick days under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (“HWHFA”) per Cal. Lab. Code §§245-249. Section 248.5(e) states the “Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the employer or other person violating this article.” Neither case law nor statutory language create a private cause of action independent of PAGA. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

The seventh claim is for failure to furnish compliant wage statements per Cal. Lab. Code §§226 and 226.3 and statutory penalties. Compl. para. 77. Section 226 creates a private cause of action for employees to seek statutory relief, costs and attorney’s fees. OVERRULED.

The eighth claim is for waiting time penalties per Cal. Lab. Code §§201-203. Under California law, employers must pay a waiting time penalty if they fail to timely provide final paychecks to employees who are terminated or quit. The penalty is equal to the employee’s daily wage for each day the final paycheck remains unpaid, up to a maximum of 30 days. Cal. Lab. Code §203. Defendant argues plaintiff’s allegations are vague and fail to assert sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

Plaintiff alleges defendant willfully failed to pay upon resignation and up to 72 hours following resignation. Compl. para. 79. This is sufficient to state a claim under §§201-203. OVERRULED.

Defendant to answer within 20 days.

Plaintiff Becerra’s Motion for Sanctions

Under California law, three primary categories of submitted papers can warrant sanctions: (1) factually frivolous submissions, which are not well-grounded in fact; (2) legally frivolous submissions, which are not supported by existing law or a good faith argument for modifying or extending the law; and (3) submissions made for an improper purpose. See Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 167. A pleading or motion is deemed “frivolous” under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §128.7 only if any reasonable attorney would find it completely and utterly without merit. In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650.

Plaintiff argues cross-complaint and demurrer are baseless and are only offered to harass plaintiff, violating §128.7.

Defendant argues the motion is procedurally defective because it fails to identify against whom sanctions are sought and is unsigned by counsel. While page 2 is undated and unsigned, page 6 has both, meeting the requirement established in Harris v. Minnesota Inv. Co. (1928) 89 Cal. App. 396, 401 and cited by defendant. Further, plaintiff requests sanctions against “defense counsel, and if warranted, defendant.” Mtn. 4:2-3. The motion is procedurally compliant.

Plaintiff asserts the cross-complaint fails Cal. Lab. Code §2750.3 (the “ABC Test”), because he was an employee. Plaintiff asserts “everything described about plaintiff’s work in the Cross-Complaint is commensurate with the operation of a cross-fit gym… defense counsel has no excuse for failing to recognize this fact and act accordingly.” Mtn. 5-6: 24-1.

Assertions that the cross-complaint’s allegations fail to satisfy §2750.3 does not render the cross-complaint legally meritless or frivolous. The cross-complaint contains affirmative claims for breach of contract and intentional interference; whether plaintiff was an employee is not dispositive.

Further, determination of whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor is a factual question typically reserved for the jury. See Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 580, 590, 135; Millsap v. Federal Express Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 425, 431.

Plaintiff argues defendant’s demurrer is “absurdly baseless.” Mtn. 6:4. Broad assertions, unsupported by facts or case law, are unavailing. Plaintiff’s request that the court take judicial notice of “the shoddy demurrer and [amended] demurrer” is inappropriate; “a request for judicial notice must be made by formal noticed motion and filed separately from the moving party’s brief.” Cal. Rules of Court 41 and 22(a)1. Further, the demurer was sustained as to two causes of action. DENIED.

Under California law, “[i]f warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §128.7(c)(1). Such attorney’s fees are warranted and appropriate when the motion for sanctions lacks a valid basis or is unreasonable. See Musaelian v. Adams (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1257-58.

Plaintiff’s motion is without merit; an award of attorney’s fees to defendant is appropriate. Defendant requests 12.6 hours at $420/hour for opposing the sanctions motion and an additional 3 hours to review a reply (none was filed) and for hearing. Wang decl. This is excessive. The court awards 5 hours for the opposition, plus 1 hour for hearing at $420/hour, a total of $2,520, payable within 30 days.