Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV46906, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46906    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant California Herbal Remedies, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

            The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers.  No reply papers were filed.  Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of an employment relationship.  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 6310; (2) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (4) remedies under the Private Attorney General Act.  The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was retaliated against for reporting violations of public health guidelines.  (See, e.g., Complaint ¶ 10.)  On December 19, 2022, Moving Defendant filed a motion to strike (the “Motion”) the Complaint.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

            The meet and confer requirement has not been satisfied.  The failure to meet and confer is not a basis for granting or denying a motion to strike; as a result, the Court will consider the Motion despite this deficiency.  (CCP § 435.5, subd. (a)(4).) 

Legal Standard

A motion to strike either: (1) strikes any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strikes any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.  (CCP § 436.) 

            The Motion argues that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action because the COVID-19 pandemic safety protocols Plaintiff allegedly complained of were not “firmly established,” and the Complaint is therefore not in conformity with the laws of this state.  As an initial matter, failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is ground for a general demurrer, not a motion to strike.  (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 529.)  Moreover, the Motion relies on a sweeping argument and lacks legal analysis.  Where a point is merely asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion.  (Central Valley Gas Storage, LLC v. Southam (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 686, 695.)

The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

   Dated this 24th day of March 2023