Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV07170, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07170    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 4, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Responding Party: Plaintiff Sheila Sansano

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

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 28, 2022, Plaintiff Sheila Sansano sued Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, asserting causes of action for (1) discrimination; (2) harassment; (3) retaliation; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (6) whistleblower retaliation; (7) breach of oral contract; and (8) breach of implied-in-fact contract. Plaintiff, a Filipino woman, alleges Defendant terminated her employment as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services because of her race, national origin, and gender, and because she reported instances of discrimination and harassment.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

            Defendant demurs to the seventh and eighth causes of action for, respectively, breach of oral contract and breach of implied-in-fact contract.

“The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.’” (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) “A cause of action for breach of implied contract has the same elements as does a cause of action for breach of contract, except that the promise is not expressed in words but is implied from the promisor’s conduct.” (Yari v. Producers Guild of America, Inc. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 172, 182.) 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s contract claims fail because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts establishing a contract was formed. The Court agrees. Plaintiff vaguely alleges that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral contract that Plaintiff only could be fired “for cause.” Plaintiff alleges this contract is also implied-in-fact because Defendant’s standard practice was to terminate for cause. Neither of these allegations is sufficient to allege the existence of a contract.

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.