Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2023-00055773-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  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  Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00055773-CU-BC-CTL BOOTH VS VALENZUELA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Haines Enterprises, Inc. dba AAMCO Transmissions ('AAMCO') and Benito Rudy Valenzuela's Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

As an initial matter, the Court treats the two filings for Request for Judicial Notice as an opposition to the demurrer.

The Complaint is uncertain because it cannot be determined from the pleadings which issues must be admitted or denied and which causes of action are targeted against which Defendant. Indeed, it is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff is suing only Defendant Benito Rudy Valenzuela or both Defendant Valenzuela, individually, and Defendant AAMCO. Consequently, it is unclear which causes of action are alleged against which Defendant.

Furthermore, the factual allegations fail to support the causes of action alleged. For the breach of contract claim, Plaintiff must allege facts showing '(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.' (Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) Additionally, the terms of the contract must be specified in the complaint and, if it is a written contract, the contract should be attached to the complaint.

For the second cause of action, which the Court interprets as a cause of action for civil harassment, Plaintiff must allege facts showing ''unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.'' (Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 484, 496 (quoting CCP § 527.6(b)(3)).) For the third cause of action, Plaintiff must allege the facts with particularity. 'This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered. [Citation.] A plaintiff's burden in asserting a fraud claim against a corporate employer is even greater. In such a case, the plaintiff must allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.' (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 (quotation marks omitted).) The Court interprets this claim as a claim for fraudulent concealment, which requires Plaintiff to allege specific facts showing '(1) defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) defendant was under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff; (4) plaintiff was unaware of the fact and Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3082749  22 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BOOTH VS VALENZUELA [IMAGED]  37-2023-00055773-CU-BC-CTL would not have acted in the same way knowing of the concealed or suppressed fact; (5) causation; and (6) the plaintiff sustained damage. (Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp. (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4th 85, 96.) As to the fourth cause of action, Plaintiff can only assert a cause of action for sexual harassment she suffered. Plaintiff cannot raise sexual harassment claims on behalf of other women. To the extent Plaintiff is asserting that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, she must allege facts showing (1) 'she was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, conduct or comments; (2) the harassment was based on sex; and (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.' (Lewis v. City of Benicia (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1524.) As to the fifth cause of action, it is unclear which statute Plaintiff is alleging Defendants violated. For claims of retaliation under FEHA, plaintiffs must allege facts showing '(1) they engaged in a protected activity; (2) they were thereafter subjected to an adverse employment action as a result; and (3) there was a causal connection between the two. (See Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(h); Yanowitz v. L'Oreal (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1044.) For claims of retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5, a plaintiff must allege that he 'disclose[d] information . . . to a person with authority over the employee' that he 'has reasonable cause to believe . . . discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation' and was retaliated against. (Lab. Code §1102.5(b).) Similarly, an employer may not retaliate against an employee 'for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.' (Id. § 1102.5(c).) 'In other words, section 1102.5 of the Labor Code requires that to come within its provisions, the activity disclosed by an employee must violate a federal or state law, rule, or regulation.' (Edgerly v. City of Oakland (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1199 (alterations and quotation marks omitted).) For the reasons discussed above, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

The amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3082749  22