Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV36511, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36511    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action is SUSTAINED, WITH 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

            Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.

            On 11/18/2022, Plaintiff Maria Velasquez (Plaintiff) filed suit against Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center for the Developmentally Disabled, Inc. (Defendant), alleging: (1) disability and perceived disability discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to prevent and/or investigate; (4) failure to provide accommodation; (5) failure to engage in the interactive process; (6) Pregnancy Disability Leave Act; (7) interference with and failure to provide leave (CFRA); (8) wrongful termination; and (9) declaratory and injunctive relief.

            Now, Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action. Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.

Demurrer Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for injunctive relief because Plaintiff is a former employee and seeks monetary damages, and thus declaratory and injunctive relief are not appropriate.

            The Court agrees.

A party seeking injunctive relief must show the absence of an adequate remedy at law. (Department of Fish & Game v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation Dist. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1564.)

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks monetary damages for alleged lost earnings and emotional distress arising out of Defendant’s termination of her employment. As such, by its very nature, Plaintiff’s Complaint concedes that a remedy at law exists to compensate Plaintiff’s injuries.

In opposition, Plaintiff cites Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4^th 203, 211 to argue this cause of action is proper. However, In Harris, the jury’s monetary damages award for pregnancy discrimination was reversed because the employer successfully established a “mixed motive” defense. Because monetary damages were no longer available, the Court held that the employee might be able to assert declaratory or injunctive relief. Here, by contrast, Plaintiff is seeking both damages and injunctive/declaratory relief simultaneously, not alternatively.

Leave will be afforded to address this deficiency.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action is sustained, with 10 days leave to amend.

Motion to Strike Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a punitive damages prayer. However, Defendant did not demur to Plaintiff’s causes of action for, among other things, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. As such, whether or not that alleged conduct was done with oppression, fraud, or malice, is a factual determination not properly decided at this stage. Accepted as true at the pleading stage, Plaintiff’s allegations that she was wrongfully discriminated and retaliated against based on protected characteristics is sufficient at this stage to show that Defendant could had engaged in conduct that “…subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2).)

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to strike is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April     , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.