Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2022-01288717, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

1. Demurrer to Complaint
Defendants Ohshima J.C. and Shigenari Kimura’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendants demur to all nine causes of action in the Complaint on the grounds that each cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and that each cause of action is uncertain.

In California, a “plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of his case with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Alch v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339, 382.) A plaintiff does not need to allege evidentiary facts. (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union H.S. Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872; Centex Homes v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1102.)

Defendants contend that the first through eighth causes of action fail because Plaintiff has only pled conclusory allegations that parrot the language of the statute. The court disagrees. The allegations of the Complaint are of sufficient particularity to apprise Defendants of the claims against them.

As to the ninth cause of action for wrongful termination, Defendants contend that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain because it is duplicative of the eighth cause of action for retaliation.

Although Plaintiff cites to two cases in which a demurrer was sustained on the grounds that a cause of action is “duplicative,” the better approach is found in Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 85. In Blickman, the Sixth District explained that “duplication” is “not a ground on which a demurrer may be sustained” under CCP section 430.10. At most, the defendant could move to strike it as irrelevant, false or improper matter under section 436(a), but even this procedural maneuver was viewed as “a waste of time and judicial resources to entertain a motion challenging part of a pleading on the sole ground of repetitiveness.” (Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 889-890.)

Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety.

2. Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint filed by Shigenari Kimura and Ohshima J.C., Inc.

Defendants Ohshima J.C. and Shigenari Kimura’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendants seek an order striking allegations regarding punitive damages; namely, Paragraphs 65 and 71 and Prayer for Relief paragraphs 3 and 5. Defendants contend that the Complaint fails to set forth anything other than conclusory allegations to establish an entitlement to punitive damages, which are insufficient as a matter of law.

The terms “wilful,” “fraudulent,” “malicious” and “oppressive” are the statutory description of the type of conduct which can sustain a cause of action for punitive damages. (Blegen v. Superior Ct. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 959, 963 [citing Cal. Civ. Code, § 3294].) “Pleading in the language of the statute is acceptable provided that sufficient facts are pleaded to support the allegations.” (Id.) “The terms themselves are conclusory, however.” (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff has alleged various violations of the Labor Code, retaliation and wrongful termination, but sets forth no facts other than conclusory allegations as to how this conduct constituted malice, oppression or fraud. (Compl. ¶¶11-15, 65, 71.)

Accordingly, the court grants the motion to strike paragraphs 65, 71 and prayer for relief paragraph 5 as to the Eighth cause of action and prayer for relief paragraph 3 as to the Ninth cause of action with leave to amend.

Defendants’ motion to strike the equitable relief allegations pled in connection with the seventh cause of action for violation of the UCL is denied for the same reasons the demurrer to the seventh cause of action is overruled.

Defendants’ motion to strike the reference to “Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the State of California” from Par. 68 of the Complaint is granted without leave to amend. As Defendants contend, the allegation appears to have no factual support in the Complaint. Further, Plaintiff did not address this in his opposition, therefore conceding the point.

Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days to file an amended complaint from the hearing date. If Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint within this time frame, Defendants shall file an answer within five (5) days.

Defendants to give notice.

3. Case Management Conference

If parties stipulate to the tentative the CMC will be reset on the Court’s own motion.