Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV13234, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

On May 28, 2024, plaintiff Stacey Velazquez (Plaintiff) filed a representative Private Attorneys General Complaint against Defendant CEC Entertainment, LLC (Defendant) for Civil Penalties Pursuant to Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 223, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197and the applicable Wage Orders.

On August 19, 2024, Defendant filed a special demurrer in abatement pursuant to CCP § 430.10(c). In the alternative, Defendant argues for Demurrer under CCP § 430.10(c) on the basis of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction.

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.¿ (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)¿ When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true.¿ (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)¿ “Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice.”¿ (Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 556.)¿

Defendant moves for a Special Demurrer in Abatement pursuant to CCP § 430.10(c). In the alternative, Defendant argues for Demurrer under CCP § 430.10(c) based on “exclusive concurrent jurisdiction.”

The court notes this case and Case No. 24STCV07299 appear to arise from the same dispute. Case No. 24STCV07299, which was filed in Department 1 of the Spring Street Courthouse, is the lower numbered case. However, the parties have not filed a Notice of Related Case. The parties are directed to file notice. The court will continue the hearing for this demurrer to allow Department 1 to consider whether these actions are related.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court