Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV21516, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV21516 Hearing Date: December 12, 2024 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
JASON L. AGUILAR, Plaintiff, v. BUILD FOR YOU REMODELING
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
Case No:
24STCV21516 Hearing Date: December 12, 2024 Calendar Number: 5 |
Defendants Build for You Remodeling Corporation (“Build for
You”) and Igor Rahlin (“Rahlin”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) demur to
the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Jason Aguilar.
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer and STAYS this action
pending the resolution of Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCV24975. This stay shall not prevent any party from
filing a notice of related case in in Case No. 23STCV24975.
The Court sets a status conference the Court sets a status
conference in the current case for June 26, 2025 at 8:30 a.m., after the
conclusion of the trial in the earlier-filed action.
This is an employment case.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Build for You from
approximately January 2022 to June 26, 2023 as a “manager”.
On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed Los Angeles Superior
Court Case No. 23STCV24975 (the “PAGA Case”) against Moving Defendants, raising
one claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).
Plaintiff filed this action against the Moving Defendants
and Efi Biton (“Biton”) on August 23, 2024, raising claims for (1) failure to
pay regular and minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure
to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to
reimburse business expenditures; (6) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (7) failure to timely pay wages upon discharge; and (8) unfair
business practices.
On
October 21, 2024, Moving Defendants demurred to the Complaint. Plaintiff filed
an opposition and Moving Defendants filed a reply.
“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has
been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to
the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:
(a) The court has
no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.
(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the
legal capacity to sue.
(c) There is
another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.
(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.
(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action.
(f) The pleading is
uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and
unintelligible.
(g) In an action
founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the
contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.
(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)
As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects
must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial
notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins.
Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading
alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants,
Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) The court assumes the truth
of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is
concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of
action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)
Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be
allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335,
348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be
amended successfully. (Ibid.;
Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f
there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause
of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist.
(1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).
Plaintiff argues that Moving Defendants failed to meet and
confer in good faith.
“A determination by the court that the meet and confer
process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a
demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).)
“If, upon review of a declaration under section 430.41,
subdivision (a)(3), a court learns no meet and confer has taken place, or
concludes further conferences between counsel would likely be productive, it
retains discretion to order counsel to meaningfully discuss the pleadings with
an eye toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for a
demurrer, and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort.” (Dumas v. Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355, fn. 3.)
The Court does not determine that further conferences are
likely to be productive.
Moving Defendants argue that this case should be stayed or
dismissed under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction.
“Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, when
two [California] superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject
matter and all parties involved in litigation, the first to assume jurisdiction
has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all
parties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been
resolved.” (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993)
20 Cal.App.4th 760, 769-770 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)
“[T]he pendency of another earlier action growing out of the same transaction
and between the same parties is a ground for abatement of the second action.” (Id.
at 770 [internal quotations and citations omitted].) “The rule is based upon
the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if
they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same
controversy and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.” (Shaw
v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 245, 255
[internal citations omitted].)
A party against whom a complaint has been filed may object
to the pleading on the grounds that “[t]here is another action pending between
the same parties on the same cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd.
(c).) The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction and the statutory plea in
abatement should be raised by demurrer where the issue appears on the face of
the complaint and by answer where factual issues must be resolved. (Garamendi,
supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 771.) “Where abatement is required [under
the plea in abatement or the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction], the
second action should be stayed, not dismissed.” (Ibid.)
Here,
the parties do not dispute that Plaintiff’s claim in the PAGA Case and
Plaintiff’s claims in this case arise out of the same alleged conduct by Moving
Defendants. Plaintiff argues that his representative PAGA claim, which is
brought in the PAGA Case, is separate from his individual claims, brought in
this case.
A
plaintiff’s representative claims under PAGA may be litigated separately from
the plaintiff’s individual claims. (Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1123.) Thus,
this is not a classic case of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction where a stay is
mandatory.
From a practical
point of view, the Court does not understand why the parties have not simply
filed a notice of related case in the first-filed action, 23STCV24975. Such a notice of related case would allow the
judicial officer in that action to relate the cases and allow litigation to
proceed in an efficient manner. Nothing
in the Court’s stay order prevents a party from filing such a notice in Case
No. 23STCV25975.
Nevertheless, if
the parties wish to proceed in two separate courts, the Court will stay this
later-filed case until Case No. 23STCV25975 is completed. Since trial is set in that earlier-filed case
for May 9, 2025, the Court sets a status conference in the current case for
June 26, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.
The Court therefore sustains the demurrer and stays this
action pending the resolution of the PAGA Case.