Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00027688-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 28, 2023

09/29/2023  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00027688-CU-NP-CTL DOE VS SANDLAND 43 LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 07/12/2023

Defendant, Eric Leitstein's Demurrer to Plaintiff Jane Doe's First Amended Complaint ('Complaint') is sustained without leave to amend as to the Plaintiff's eighth cause of action for declaratory relief, and is overruled as to the third through ninth causes of action.

At this stage of the case, the Court is required to liberally construe the allegations of the Complaint, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. CCP § 452. The Court should sustain a demurrer only if the facts alleged in the complaint, liberally construed, are insufficient to constitute any cognizable cause of action. A demurrer may be granted without leave to amend if there is no reasonable possibility that the pleading defect may be cured by amendment. Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1381.

Further, a demurrer does not lie to a part of a cause of action. Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1047; PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682. A demurrer must be overruled where any part of the cause of action is properly pleaded. Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.

After careful review of the pleadings, arguments and authorities presented by the parties, the Court believes that the allegations set forth in the Complaint are sufficient at this stage of the case to state cognizable claims against defendant Eric Leitstein for discrimination in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; harassment in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq, retaliation in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940(k); wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy; and for failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records. In particular, at the pleading stage, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged alter legal liability and therefore potential liability against Leistein for alleged wrongdoings of the corporate employer. See Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 409; Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 235.

Plaintiff's requested declaratory relief is duplicative of her other claims and requests for relief. Under CCP § 1061, a court may refuse declaratory relief when such relief is not necessary or proper. 'The object of the [declaratory relief] statute is to afford a new form of relief where needed and not to furnish a litigant with a second cause of action for the determination of identical issues.' California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1617, 1618.

As such the Court sustains Defendant Leitstein's demurrer to plaintiff's eighth cause of action for declaratory relief without leave to amend.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2995743  40 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DOE VS SANDLAND 43 LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00027688-CU-NP-CTL As the case progresses, defendant Leitstein may continue to assert the arguments and defenses presented by this demurrer, including those regarding alleged alter ego liability, by way of motions and at trial.

Leitstein is ordered to file an answer within 30 days of this order.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2995743  40