Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2023-00032504-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 14, 2023

12/15/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00032504-CU-OE-CTL GIRON VS BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint is impermissibly uncertain under CCP § 430.10(f). The Complaint states Plaintiff 'worked for Defendants during which time she was paid hourly and was considered non-exempt' and is an aggrieved employee 'because she was employed by Defendants and had one or more of the alleged violations committed against him [sic].' (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10.) It also states that the complaint is brought 'on behalf of other current and former California non-exempt employees.' (Id. at pg. 2.) However, the Complaint is devoid of any facts related to Plaintiff's employment, including the time period in which the alleged violations occurred and any claim that one of the alleged violations was committed against her. Instead, the Complaint asserts nearly every violation 'upon information and belief' and merely recites the elements of the cause of action in a conclusory manner. Finally, the Complaint fails to allege any companywide policy or practice that would allow Plaintiff to proceed on behalf of every hourly, non-exempt employee regardless of job position or work location.

Plaintiff argues that it is sufficient to allege that a complaint is brought on behalf of 'other current and former California non-exempt employees of Defendant.' (ROA 12, pg. 6 (citing Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531 (Williams) and Rojas-Cifuentes v. Superior Ct. of San Joaquin Cty. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1051 (Rojas)).) However, the complaint in Williams alleged the Labor Code violations were 'on a companywide basis.' (3 Cal.5th at 538.) Most importantly, the complaint supported the causes of action with specific allegations as to how the Labor Code violations occurred, including claims that managers were directed to erase meal period violations from time records and that Defendants had adopted a policy and practice not to pay premiums for missed breaks or reimburse employees for time spent on specific types of company business. (Id.) Finally, Williams dealt with discovery of potential aggrieved employees, not the sufficiency of the complaint on a demurrer. Similarly, Rojas dealt with a summary adjudication motion rather than a demurrer and addressed the sufficiency of the pre-litigation PAGA notice. (58 Cal.App. at 1054-55.) As such, neither case is on point.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020829  17