Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV14047, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14047    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 8, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Alexander Landa

Responding Party: Plaintiff Idan Castiel

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

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 June 4, 2024, Plaintiff Idan Castiel filed a complaint against Defendants Philly Auto, Inc. dba LA City Cars and Alexander Landa, asserting causes of action for (1) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 98.6; (2) whistleblower retaliation; (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (4) failure to pay wages; (5) failure to pay minimum wages; (6) failure to pay overtime; (7) failure to provide wage statements; (8) waiting time penalties; and (9) UCL violations. Plaintiff alleges Defendants misclassified him as an “exempt” employee for wage and hour purposes, failed to pay him overtime, made unlawful deductions from his pay and retaliated against him when he complained of these violations and complained about overcharging customers by terminating his employment.

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 Landa demurs to the complaint on the grounds that he, as an individual, cannot be held liable for retaliation, wrongful termination, or wage and hour claims. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that Landa was an “employer” and that these claims may only lie against the Defendant entity employer, Philly Auto, Inc.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that both Philly Auto and Landa are his employers. Plaintiff alleges that Landa is the alter ego of Philly Auto. Plaintiff also alleges that Landa was directly involved and in charge of the wrongful conduct at issue here. Plaintiff alleges Landa was engaged in the illegal practice of including add-ons to customer car sales contracts, and in making suspicious deductions from Plaintiff’s pay. When Plaintiff asked other colleagues about these issues, he was told that employees don’t have authority to override Landa and that this is how Landa does business. Plaintiff also was told to be careful and not to ask too many questions about Defendants’ money. When confronted directly with Plaintiff’s concern, Plaintiff alleges Landa stated, “I can do whatever I want.” Plaintiff’s employment was terminated shortly thereafter.

On demurrer the Court must treat the allegations in the pleadings as true. Plaintiff has alleged several facts showing Landa controlled Philly Auto, acted as Plaintiff’s employer, and was directly responsible for the wrongful conduct at the heart of this action. These allegations are also sufficient to allege UCL violations.

Defendant Landa’s demurrer is OVERRULED.