Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21STCV00562, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00562    Hearing Date: June 22, 2023    Dept: C

JIMENEZ v. GOLDEN WEST SEAFOOD GROUP, INC.

CASE NO.:  21STCV00562

HEARING:  06/22/23

#5

     I.        Defendants 4441 DOWNEY ROAD, LLC; CALIFORNIA RANCH FOOD COMPANY, INC.; GOLDEN WEST GOOD GROUP, INC.; and COMPLETELY FRESH FOODS, INC.’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs PABLO ALABARRAN and VANESSA ALABARRAN’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

    II.        Defendants 4441 DOWNEY ROAD, LLC; CALIFORNIA RANCH FOOD COMPANY, INC.; GOLDEN WEST GOOD GROUP, INC.; and COMPLETELY FRESH FOODS, INC.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs PABLO ALABARRAN and VANESSA ALABARRAN’s Complaint is MOOT.

Moving Party to give notice.

This personal injury action was filed on January 6, 2021.

On November 16, 2022, the Subject Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs PABLO ALABARRAN and VANESSA ALABARRAN (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs allege the following relevant facts: Plaintiff Pablo Albarran was an employee of Citi Staffing Solutions, an employment staffing agency. (Complaint ¶8.) Plaintiff was assigned to perform custodial work at 4401 South Downey Road, Vernon California. (Complaint ¶9.) “On or about the aforepled date, while on his work assignment for Citi Staffing Solutions, a noxious nitrogen leak occurred and dispersed throughout an enclosed refrigerated room at Defendants’ warehouse facility.” (Complaint ¶10.) “By the time anyone at Defendants’ facility took heed of the fact than an ultrahazard nitrogen leak had occurred, it was two late. Two human beings had already been killed due to the toxic fumes. At approximately 6:50 p.m., Plaintiff entered the enclosed refrigerated room that was engulfed in nitrogen gas…. [¶] Plaintiff began to clean the refrigerated room…. Plaintiff was oblivious to the fact that the poisonous gases in the room were killing people at that very moment.” (Complaint ¶¶10-12.) “After performing cleaning duties for a few minutes, Plaintiff discovered two human bodies laying on the ground….” (Complaint ¶13.) “Plaintiff attempted to open the door…. Plaintiff pushed and pulled on the door, to no avail. He was suffocating from the odorless fumes. His throat and nose were rapidly closing; but Plaintiff did not know why. By this point in time, Plaintiff’s internal organs had been permanently damaged.” (Complaint ¶16.) “Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff began to actualize his symptoms, and sought medical treatment; however, it was too late—he had already suffered permanent multi-system organ damage….” (Complaint ¶18.)

Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Premises Liability; and (3) Products Liability.

Defendants 4441 DOWNEY ROAD, LLC; CALIFORNIA RANCH FOOD COMPANY, INC.; GOLDEN WEST GOOD GROUP, INC.; and COMPLETELY FRESH FOODS, INC. (collectively “Defendants”) specially and generally demur to each cause of action.  Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled alter ego allegations to survive demurrer.

Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants are the alter ego(s) of agents/employees/alter egos of one another. (See Complaint ¶¶6-7.)

Ordinarily, a corporation is regarded as a legal entity, separate and distinct from its stockholders, officers and directors, with separate and distinct liabilities and obligations. [Citations.]” (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538.) “In California, two conditions must be met before the alter ego doctrine will be invoked.  First, there must be such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its equitable owner that the separate personalities of the corporation and the shareholder do not in reality exist. Second, there must be an inequitable result if the acts in question are treated as those of the corporation alone.” (Id.)  Among the factors to be considered in applying the doctrine are commingling of funds and other assets of the two entities, the holding out by one entity that it is liable for the debts of the other, identical equitable ownership in the two entities, use of the same offices and employees, and use of one as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of the other.  (Id., at 538-539.)  Other factors include inadequate capitalization, disregard of corporate formalities, lack of segregation of corporate records, and identical directors and officers.  (Id., at 539.)  No one characteristic governs.  The courts must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the doctrine should be applied.  Alter ego is an extreme remedy which is sparingly used.  (Id.)

The Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations to suggest that . Only conclusions—not facts—are alleged indicating a unity of interest between Defendants. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 415. [“To recover on an alter ego theory, a plaintiff need not use the words, ‘alter ego,’ but must allege sufficient facts to show a unity of interest and ownership, and an unjust result if the corporation is treated is treated as the sole actor”].) The Court needs sufficient facts, as opposed to bare legal conclusions which would allow an inference that the Defendants are the alter egos of one another.

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims are also fatally uncertain. “A special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach the failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed at the uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.” (Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145-146.) However, demurrers for uncertainty will be sustained where the pleading is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif. Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Here, the Complaint makes no attempt to distinguish the actions that each separate defendant might have taken—Plaintiffs’ blanket allegations are insufficient to put Defendants on notice as to what is being alleged against

Defendants’ Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

The Motion to Strike is rendered MOOT by the Court’s ruling on the Demurrer above.