Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 24STCV08161, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08161    Hearing Date: August 7, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:      August 7, 2024                                              TRIAL DATE:   Not set

CASE:                         Gloria Ramos v. Gold Value International Textile, et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV08161

DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Gloria Ramos  

RESPONDING PARTY:     Defendants Gold Value International Textile, et al.

I.          INTRODUCTION

            This is an employment action.  Plaintiff Gloria Ramos (Ramos or Plaintiff) alleges that her employers, Defendants Gold Value International Textile, Inc. (Gold Value), BTFLLIFE, Inc. (BTFL), and Morris Ajnassian (Ajnassian) prevented her from leaving work premises for her rest breaks and meal periods.  Further, when Plaintiff refused to attend a holiday work party because of the meal and rest period violations, Ajnassian, the chief executive officer of BTLF, became enraged and assaulted Plaintiff. 

On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for (1) constructive discharge in violation of public policy, (2) work environment harassment, (3) disparate treatment, (4) meal period liability, (5) rest break liability, (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (7) waiting time penalties, (8) violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (10) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On April 15, 2024, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint.  The Answer asserted a general denial and thirty-six affirmative defenses.    

On May 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed this demurrer to Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1-35 of the Answer.

Defendants filed an opposition.  Plaintiff did not file a reply.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            A demurrer to an answer may be brought on one of three (3) grounds: (1) failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense; (2) uncertainty; and (3) failure to state whether contract alleged in the answer is written or oral.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.20.)

Affirmative defenses should be relevant to a plaintiff’s legal claims and averred carefully, with as much detail as the facts constituting the corresponding causes of action in the complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) Affirmative defenses should not be proffered in the form of “terse legal conclusions.” (Ibid.)

Upon sustaining a demurrer, where a pleading can be reasonably cured by amendment, the trial court abuses its discretion by not granting leave to amend. (Czajkowski v. Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 173.)

III.      DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s demurrer is untimely.  Typically, a party who has filed a complaint may, within 10 days after service of the answer to his pleading, demur to the answer.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40, subd. (b).)¿

            Here, Defendants filed and served their Answer on April 15, 2024.  On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Declaration of Demurring or Moving Party in Support of Automatic Extension.  Pursuant to the extension, Plaintiff had an additional thirty days—until May 28, 2024 (accounting for court holidays)—to file her demurrer.  However, without explanation, Plaintiff filed this demurrer on May 31, 2024.  The filing is untimely. 

            Second, the notice of motion is defective.  Plaintiff’s notice of motion indicates she is moving “for an order to stay proceedings in [this] case.”  (See Notice of Motion, p. 1.)      

IV.       CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1-35 of the Defendants’ Answer is OVERRULED. 

Clerk of the court to give notice. 

Dated:   August 7, 2024