Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV23606, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23606    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 22, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant National Retail Transportation, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Enrique Dominguez Gonzalez

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 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 July 21, 2022, Plaintiff Enrique Dominguez Gonzalez sued Defendants National Retail Transportation, Inc. and Workforce Solutions, Inc., asserting causes of action for FEHA and Labor Code violations, and wrongful termination. Plaintiff alleges Defendants terminated his employment after he suffered a fall and wrist injury at work.

ANALYSIS

A. 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 first, third through fifth and seventh causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process and wrongful termination.

            Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to allege a disability. In support, Defendant cites Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Wash., Inc., (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 635, 659. Rope dealt with the issue of associational disability discrimination. The plaintiff was donating a kidney to his sister and there was no dispute that the plaintiff was not disabled at the time of termination. Here, Plaintiff alleges he “was performing his job duties when he tripped over a pallet jack and injured his wrist. This injury impaired his major life activity of working, this constituting a disability.” (Compl. ¶ 19.) This is sufficient to allege a disability.

            Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

B. Motion to Strike

“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.)

Punitive damages are available in noncontract cases where the defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civil Code § 3294(a).)  Conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  (See, e.g., Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 590, 620.)  However, “the stricken language must be read not in isolation, but in the context of the facts alleged in the rest of petitioner's complaint.”  (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 1, 6.)

            Defendant moves to strike the claim for punitive damages on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing malice, oppression, or fraud and has failed to allege any wrongdoing by a managing agent of Defendant. Plaintiff alleges he was injured at work, Defendants refused to accommodate his disability despite requests, did not engage in the interactive process and instead terminated his employment. Plaintiff alleges these actions were ratified by a managing agent of Defendant. This is sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.

            Defendant’s motion is DENIED.