Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV04058, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04058    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 6, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants The Impact Seat LLC, Tethered LLC, The Impact Seat Foundation Corp., and Barbara Clarke

Responding Party: Plaintiff Terence Craig

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

                        On February 1, 2022, Plaintiff Terence Craig sued Defendants The Impact Seat LLC, Tethered LLC, The operative first amended complaint, filed on July 28, 2022, asserts causes of action for (1) whistleblower retaliation (Labor Code § 1102.5); (2) Labor Code retaliation (Labor Code § 98.6); (3) discrimination on the basis of age in violation of FEHA; (4)  discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (5) discrimination on the basis of race in violation of FEHA; (6) harassment on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (7) harassment on the basis of race in violation of FEHA; (8) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (9) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (10) defamation-slander; (11) violation of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194 & 1198 (overtime); (11) violation of California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512(a) (meal period premiums); violation of California Labor Code § 226.7 (rest period premiums); (14) violation of California Labor Code §§ 226(a) and 226.2 (wage statements; (15) conversion; (16) breach of contract; and (17) violation of Labor Code § 925. This action arises out of Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants.  

            Defendants move to strike portions of the first amended complaint. Plaintiff opposes.

ANALYSIS

“Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading; (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the Court." (CCP § 436.) The Court's authority to strike improper pleadings includes the power to strike those pleadings that are "not filed in conformity with its prior ruling." (Janis v. California State Lottery Com (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 824, 829.)

Defendants moves to strike the following allegations that concern non-parties Lisa Coca, Trish Costello and Porfolia, Inc.: (1) the portion of paragraph 60 stating, “and her associates;” (2) paragraph 61 in its entirety; (3) paragraph 62 in its entirety; (4) paragraph 63 in its entirety; (5) paragraph 64 in its entirety; and (6) the portion of paragraph 66 stating, “Ms. Coca and.” (Notice of Motion at pg. 2.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Clarke is a board member of Porfolia Inc., which is helmed by CEO Trish Costello. (FAC ¶ 61.) The FAC also alleges that Lisa Coca, an African-American woman, was denied employment with Portfolia, Inc. for reasons similar to those leading to the termination of Plaintiff’s employment. (FAC ¶¶ 61-64.) The FAC also alleges that Defendant Clarke worked directly with Ms. Coca, promised benefits to Ms. Coca that were later denied, and did not intervene in Ms. Coca’s termination. (FAC ¶ 64.)

Defendants argue that these allegations are irrelevant because they concern non-parties and not essential to any Plaintiff’s claims; they contend the allegations concern an employee of a third-party entity. (Motion at pg. 6.) Defendants also say that striking these allegations will avoid any waste of judicial resources. (Id. at pg. 7.) The Court disagrees. In discrimination and harassment cases, “me too” allegations are proper and relevant. (See Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87; Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 790.) Defendant Clarke allegedly was involved in discriminating against another individual based on their race. These allegations are not irrelevant.

Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.