Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 22-1259571, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

1.    Demurrer to Complaint

2.    Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Demurrer to Complaint

Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice of court filings and orders in unrelated cases is denied as irrelevant to the issues raised in the motion.

Defendants demur to the complaint on the grounds of misjoinder under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(d), and for failure to state a cause of action against Defendant PIMCO Investments, LLC.

Code of Civil Procedure section 378 states,

“(a) All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:

(1) They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action; or

(2) They have a claim, right, or interest adverse to the defendant in the property or controversy which is the subject of the action.

(b) It is not necessary that each plaintiff be interested as to every cause of action or as to all relief prayed for. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective right to relief.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 379.5 states,

“When parties have been joined under Section 378 or 379, the court may make such orders as may appear just to prevent any party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to undue expense, and may order separate trials or make such other order as the interests of justice may require.”

Here, Plaintiffs don’t allege they worked in the same department/office or under the same supervisors/managers while employed by Defendants.

Plaintiffs both allege they sustained damages as a result of Defendants’ alleged practice of racial discrimination. They further allege that Defendants’ Global Head of Human Resources, Defendant Shanahan, failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ internal complaints and/or retaliated against Plaintiffs.

Here, Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts showing that their claims arise out of the same transactions or occurrences and that their claims raise common question of law or fact under Code of Civil Procedure section 378.

For example, Plaintiffs don’t allege they worked on the same team or were supervised by the same individuals. Plaintiff Dowtin was a regular employee who worked remotely from his home in Washington, D.C. while Plaintiff Kim was hired as an independent contractor and was employed in California. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 57, 67.)

Plaintiff Dowtin is African American and Plaintiff Kim is Asian. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff Kim alleges acts of discrimination by his supervisor, Defendant Chung, related to Plaintiff Kim’s identity as a Korean American. (Id. at ¶¶ 70-75.)

Plaintiff Dowtin alleges his supervisor Mr. Linke engaged in discrimination and that Defendants failed to provide equal advancement opportunities to Plaintiff as an African American employee. (Id. at ¶¶45-51.)

Defendants also contend Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts against Defendant PIMCO Investments, LLC. Plaintiffs acknowledge that they failed to include factual allegations as to this Defendant and seek leave to amend to state such facts.

Therefore, the demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

Motion to Strike

In light of the order sustaining Defendants’ demurrer with leave to amend, the motion to strike is moot.

Moving party to give notice.

Future hearing dates

11/1/22 – CMC

12/1/22 – Motion for Protective Order

12/8/22 – Motion to Quash Discovery Subpoena