Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV08371, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08371    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 27, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint;

Motion to Bifurcate

Moving Party: Defendant Rand Corporation

Responding Party: Plaintiff Tepring Piquado

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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS. 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.[1]

BACKGROUND

           On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff Tepring Piquado sued Defendant Rand Corporation, asserting causes of action for FEHA violations, Labor Code violations, and wrongful termination. Plaintiff alleges Defendant terminated her employment in retaliation for addressing racial inequality at Rand.

ANALYSIS

A. Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint

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 thirteenth cause of action for PAGA penalties. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to identify aggrieved employees and specific Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated Labor Code § 226.8, which prohibits misclassification of employees as independent contractors. But the complaint does not that state that Plaintiff seeks PAGA penalties on behalf of aggrieved employees for Labor Code § 226.8 violations. Plaintiff must amend the complaint to include that allegation, as well as some "description of the aggrieved employees" so the scope of the employees Plaintiff purports to represent may be ascertained. (See Chie v. Reed Elsevier, Inc., 2011 WL 3879495, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011).

In reply, Defendant argues that amendment is futile because Plaintiff’s LWDA letter does not state she brings a representative action for § 226.8 violations. The LDWA letter states that Plaintiff and other employees have been misclassified. This is sufficient to give notice of a representative action.

Defendant also argues that the PAGA claim must fail because it will be “unmanageable.” The Second District and Fourth District Courts of Appeal recently addressed the issue of manageability of PAGA claims. The Second District held that trial courts have inherent authority to dismiss PAGA claims that cannot be tried fairly and efficiently. (Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746, 765.) The Fourth District reached the opposite conclusion. (Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 685, 697.)

In any event, Defendant has not shown that the case is unmanageable. The Court cannot sustain a demurrer on these grounds based on the record before it.

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

C. Motion to Bifurcate

“Code of Civil Procedure section 598 allows a party to seek an order before trial ‘that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case,’ where ‘the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby ….’” (Estate of Young (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 62, 90.)

Defendant moves to bifurcate discovery and trial. Defendant asserts that discovery and trial of Plaintiff’s individual claims should come before discovery and trial of Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. Defendant states that the PAGA claim will be dismissed, and if not dismissed, it will be so unmanageable that it must be tried separately. As with the demurrer, the Court does not have sufficient information to make orders regarding manageability at this stage of the case.

The motion to bifurcate is DENIED.