Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV30991, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV30991    Hearing Date: February 20, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 20, 2025 

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter 

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike 

Moving Party: Defendant Special Service for Groups, Inc. 

Responding Party: Plaintiff Sonia Sanchez 

T/R:    DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED. 

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED. 

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 November 25, 2024, Plaintiff Sonia Sanchez sued Defendant Special Service for Groups, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) pregnancy leave discrimination; (2) violation of CFRA; (3) violation of the Reproductive Loss Leave; (4) FEHA pregnancy discrimination; (5) failure to accommodate; (6) failure to engage in the interactive process; and (7) FEHA retaliation. Plaintiff alleges Defendant discriminated against her for her pregnancy losses and related health issues.  

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 second cause of action for violation of the California Family Rights Act because Plaintiff did not suffer from a “serious health condition” as defined under the act. CFRA defines “family care and medical leave” to mean, among others, “[l]eave because of an employee’s own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of that employee, except for leave taken for disability on account of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” (Gov’t Code § 12945.2(b)(5)(C).) Plaintiff alleges she took medical leave to address health issues such a backpain that were related to her pregnancies. Defendant argues that these health issues are specifically excluded from CFRA under the above definition.  

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that her two miscarriages and related health issues are not “on account of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” and instead are separate serious health conditions. Plaintiff does not provide authority supporting this interpretation of the definition of “serious health condition.” 

As stated, Plaintiff alleges Defendants discriminated against her for taking leave due to health issues related to pregnancy and pregnancy loss. CFRA excludes these health conditions from its definition of “serious health conditions.” Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED.  

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 claims for punitive damages on the ground that Plaintiff has not alleged Defendant acted with fraud, oppression, or malice. Plaintiff alleged Defendant wrongfully ended her employment because she took protected medical leave to pregnancy and pregnancy loss. A reasonable jury could find that this amounts to oppression or malice.  

The motion to strike is DENIED.