Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 21CHCV00467, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 21CHCV00467    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 3-25-24

Case # 21CHCV00467, Vanessa Silvas vs. Central Valley Occupational Medical Group, Inc., et al.

Trial Date: 6-3-24

 

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH MOTION TO STRIKE

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Prohealth Profession Services, LLC, Regency Surgery Center, Central Valley Occupational Medical Group, Inc., Pro-Health Valley Occupational Medical Group, Inc., and Sean Younai (Defendants)

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiff Vanessa Silvas

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (FAC)

·         Entire Complaint

·         8th Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

·         9th Cause of Action for Racial Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA

·         10th Cause of Action for Sexual Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA

·         11th Cause of Action for Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA

·         12th Cause of Action for Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA

·         13th Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA

·         14th Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of the FEHA

·         15th Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

 

Motion to Strike

·         The FAC and Ms. Grau’s declaration in their entirety

·         Causes of Action Eight through Fifteen (barred by the statute of limitations)

·         Cause of Action Thirteen because the Court already ruled that there is no private right of action for this claim

·         Causes of Action Fourteen and Fifteen for distinct reasons

·         Paragraphs 133 through 142 for attorney fees

·         Paragraph 9 of the FAC’s Prayer for Relief for attorney fees

·         References to Defendants Regency and CVOMG

·         Paragraph 6.d.

·         Paragraph 7

 

RULING: Continued to allow for supplemental briefing

 

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This is an employment law case arising from Plaintiff Vanessa Silvas’s (Plaintiff) alleged wrongful termination. Plaintiff filed her suit against Defendants on June 22, 2021. On October 13, 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiff to do one of two things: substitute the trustee from her bankruptcy case as the real party in interest, or secure proof of abandonment of the claims.

 

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) with a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel. Attached to that declaration was what is purported to be an email from Plaintiff’s bankruptcy trustee, Diane Weil. Weil herself did not authenticate the email, and even if it were authenticated, there is no way to tell from the email whether all claims related to Plaintiff’s bankruptcy have been abandoned.

 

Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s FAC on the basis that Plaintiff failed to follow the Court’s order from October 13, 2023, that granted Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and ordered Plaintiff to file a FAC substituting in the bankruptcy Trustee as the real party in interest or secure proof of abandonment of the claims against her. Defendants argue that Plaintiff therefore lacks standing. Defendant argues that the purported email is insufficient to demonstrate that abandonment and also constitutes hearsay.

 

ANALYSIS

As further discussed below, the evidentiary objections and request for judicial notice shall be addressed at such time that the rest of the issues in these motions are heard.

 

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (CCP § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law…” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

 

Entire Complaint

The Court finds that the information presented regarding Plaintiff’s bankruptcy status is insufficient for the Court to make a determination as to whether Ms. Silvas may proceed as the Plaintiff in this case. It is impossible to tell from the email exhibit that Plaintiff submitted with her amended complaint whether her bankruptcy case has been abandoned in its entirety. The Court will require supplemental briefing as to what constitutes proof of abandonment of the bankruptcy case.

 

The Court will set a briefing schedule on this issue at the hearing on this matter. The rest of issues from the demurrer and motion to strike are continued until the Court determines whether Ms. Silvas is the correct Plaintiff.

 

Moving party to give notice.