Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV08371, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08371    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 25, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Rand Corporation

Responding Party: Plaintiff Tepring Piquado

T/R:    DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

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

            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 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 her addressing racial inequality at the corporation. Following Defendant’s demurrer to the PAGA cause of action, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on October 27, 2022.

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 thirteenth cause of action of PAGA penalties on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s LWDA notice alleges a representative PAGA action for Worker’s Compensation violations whereas the FAC alleges a PAGA action for misclassification of employees as independent contractors per Labor Code § 226.8.

            Defendant argues that LWDA notices require “exceedingly detailed level of specificity” to be effective, citing Culley v. Lincare Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1193 (E.D. Cal. 2017). This standard does not exist under California state law. The LDWA notice provides that Plaintiff “seeks a civil penalty under PAGA for RAND’s misclassification of her as an independent contractor. The purpose of this letter is to comply with the procedural requirements for bringing a PAGA action.” It later states, “Dr. Piquado alleges that, in the past year alone, RAND has engaged hundreds of individuals—if not more—pursuant to the same template Agreement that she herself signed” and “RAND therefore violated section 226.8 of the Labor Code, and is liable for the civil penalty set forth in that section.” (FAC, Exh. 3.) This is sufficient to establish notice of a PAGA claims for misclassification.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.