Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00000403-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 17, 2023

08/18/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00000403-CU-WT-CTL LIM VS LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Christine Stott's demurrer is SUSTAINED.

A demurrer shall be sustained if the complaint 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action' or if the complaint is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f).) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court may also consider matters that have been judicially noticed. (Id.) The court shall give the complaint a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Here, Defendants demur to the first, third, fourth, eighth, and ninth causes of action, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation in violation of public policy, harassment, negligence, and failure to engage in the interactive process, respectively.

Plaintiff concedes the third cause of action cannot survive demurrer. It also appears that Defendants have abandoned their argument as to the eighth cause of action for negligence, after Plaintiff clarified in her opposition the cause of action is against all defendants. Consequently, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the third cause of action, and overruled as to the eighth cause of action.

As to the first cause of action, the court agrees that the facts plead are not sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant Stott. Completely absent from the complaint are any factual allegations of the kind of extreme and outrageous behavior by Defendant Stott that could give rise to an IIED claim. The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the first cause of action against Defendant Stott.

As to the fourth cause of action, the facts plead are not sufficient to state a claim for harassment against either defendant. The complaint is severely lacking in non-conclusory factual allegations against Defendant Stott, including that Defendant Stott harassed her because Plaintiff is disabled, that Defendant Stott knew she was disabled, or that Plaintiff requested Defendant Stott reasonably accommodate her. The complaint is also lacking in factual allegations that would support the kind of severe and pervasive harassing conduct that may give rise to a hostile work environment claim; generalized and conclusory claims of denying access to water or restrooms and 'taunting' are not sufficient to put Defendants on notice of the claims against them. Consequently, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the fourth cause of action.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2950599  7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  LIM VS LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA  37-2023-00000403-CU-WT-CTL As to the ninth cause of action, the complaint does not adequately plead that Plaintiff actually requested an accommodation for her disability with respect to the contentions concerning water and rest breaks.

(See Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (n); see also Spitzer v. Good Guys (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384.) An assertion of willingness to engage in the interactive process (Complaint, ¶ 81) is not an allegation that reasonable accommodations were in fact requested and denied by Defendants. Further, there can be no liability against a manager like Defendant Stott for failure to engage in the interactive process.

(See, e.g., Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663.) Accordingly, Defendants' demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the first, fourth, and ninth causes of action, without leave to amend as to third cause of action, and overruled as to the eighth cause of action.

Plaintiffs have 30 days after entry of this order to file a first amended complaint.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2950599  7