Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV00766, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00766    Hearing Date: August 16, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Christopher M. Mirabueno (a self-represented litigant, “Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on April 5, 2024, alleging that he is bringing a claim against Defendant Max’s Glendale (“Defendant”) for wrongful termination.  The form complaint is two pages in length and includes exhibits, but no facts are alleged.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On July 12, 2024, Defendant Max’s of Manila, Inc. dba Max’s Glendale (“Defendant”) filed a demurrer to the complaint.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant demurs to the complaint and the sole cause of action for wrongful termination. 

            First, Defendant argues that the action is time-barred by the statute of limitations.  According to the exhibits attached to the complaint, Plaintiff last worked on March 13, 2020 at Defendant and was terminated based on a temporary layoff.  (Compl., Ex. 5.)  Plaintiff filed this action on April 5, 2024.  Defendant argues that if the wrongful termination was based on a written or oral contract, then the statute of limitations would be 4 years (for a written contract) or 2 years (for an oral contract) from the termination date pursuant to CCP §§ 337 and 339.  If based on a contract, then the claim would be time-barred under either of these statute of limitations periods based on the termination date.  Defendant also argues that if the wrongful termination claim was based on a violation of public policy, then the statute of limitations would be 2 years pursuant to CCP § 335.1, which again would have elapsed.  (In addition, Defendant argues that the claim would be time barred under FEHA’s 3-year statute of limitations period under Government Code, § 12956 and under the WARN Act’s 3-year statute of limitations period under CCP § 338(a).  Defendant also provides the statute of limitations for other scenarios based on the possible types of wrongful termination Plaintiff may be alleging in his complaint.  [Dem. at pp.4-6].)  Based on the sparse allegations and exhibits of the complaint, the action appears to be time-barred, which is a basis to sustain the demurrer. 

Second, Defendant argues that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cause of action and is uncertain.  Most of Defendant’s arguments are premised upon guesswork at what Plaintiff’s claims could possibly be based on—i.e., whether the employment was at-will or not, whether the termination was based on retaliation or discrimination under FEHA, etc.  This lack of certainty regarding the basis of the termination shows that the allegations are uncertain.  A review of the complaint shows that Plaintiff has not alleged any actual factual allegations to support his claim for wrongful termination.  He has not alleged any facts regarding the context of the wrongful termination, such that the complaint is uncertain and lacks sufficient facts.  As such, the demurrer is sustained on these grounds as well.

The demurrer to the complaint is sustained.  As this is Plaintiff’s first attempt at the pleading, the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, if possible. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Max’s of Manila, Inc. dba Max’s Glendale’s demurrer to the complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order. 

DATED: August 16, 2024                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court