Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV24555, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 23STCV24555 Hearing Date: March 11, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Demurrer to Complaint
Moving Party: Defendants
Autism Spectrum Support Center LLC and Aki Kawamata
Resp. Party: Plaintiff Lorna Murt
The Demurrer is OVERRULED.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:
The Demurrer is filed on behalf of both
Defendants, yet it only asks that the Complaint be dismissed as to Defendant
Kawamata. The Court is not sure why
Defendant Autism Spectrum Support Center LLC is a party to this demurrer.
On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff Lorna Murt filed her
Complaint against Defendants Autism Spectrum Support Center LLC and Aki
Kawamata on causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s employment by Defendants.
On February 13, 2024, Defendants filed their Demurrer to
the Complaint. Defendants concurrently filed their Proposed Order.
On February 15, 2024, Defendant Autism Spectrum Support
Center LLC filed its Answer to the Complaint.
On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Opposition to
the Demurrer.
On March 4, 2024, Defendants filed their Reply in support
of their Demurrer.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal
Standard
“The party
against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by
demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or
more of” various grounds listed in statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)
“When any ground
for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face
thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take
judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the
pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).)
“A demurrer to a
complaint or cross-complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or
cross-complaint or to any of the causes of action stated therein.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 430.50, subd. (a).)
“In reviewing the sufficiency
of a complaint against a general demurrer, we are guided by long-settled rules.
We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not
contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We also consider matters which may be judicially
noticed. Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation,
reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985)
39 Cal.3d 311, 318, citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
II.
Discussion
Defendants demur to all six causes of action in the Complaint on the
bases of insufficiency and uncertainty of the facts pleaded. (Demurrer, pp.
4:23–5:3.) Specifically, Defendants argue that Defendant Aki Kawamata cannot be
held liable for any of these causes of action because Plaintiff does not state
facts sufficient to establish Defendant Aki Kawamata as Plaintiff’s employer or
agent responsible for any alleged wage and hour violations, including via the
alter ego theory. (Id. at pp. 5:20–23, 7:14–15.)
Defendants are incorrect.
Defendants state in their demurrer:
In determining whether a defendant
is an employer, courts consider the “totality of circumstances” that “reflect
upon the nature of the work relationship of the parties, with emphasis upon the
extent to which the defendant controls the [employee’s] performance of work
duties.” (Vernon v. State (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 114,124.) . . . In addition to control, courts look to the
following factors in a “totality of circumstances” approach: the authority of
the alleged joint-employer to hire, transfer, promote, discipline, or discharge
the employee; the power to set work schedules and assignments; control of
employee records, including payroll; the payment of salary or other employment
benefits; the discretion to determine the amount of compensation earned by an
employee; whether the work is considered part of the defendant’s regular
business operations. (Id. at 125 [citations omitted].) (Demurrer, p. 5:28 – p. 6:10.)
The Demurrer goes on
to say that:
Moreover, . . . the [California] Supreme Court looked at the
following factors to determine whether a joint employment relationship existed:
whether the direct employer operated a single, integrated business operation
unrelated to the outside parties; whether the direct employer had outside
sources of revenue; who had the exclusive power to hire and fire workers; who
gave directions as to how to perform the work; who maintained control of wages;
who determined when and where to report to work; and who determined when to
take breaks. (Id. at 72-72.) (Demurrer,
p. 6:11-21.)
These are clearly
factual issues that must be determined through discovery.
Further, the Complaint alleges that Defendants Autism Spectrum Support
Center LLC and Aki Kawamata (as well as the Doe defendants) have a unity of
interest and ownership, lack any individuality and separateness, and are in
reality one and the same. (Complaint, ¶¶ 5, 13–17.) Further, Plaintiff
explicitly alleges that Aki Kawamata was one of Plaintiff’s employer. (Id. at
¶ 5.)
The Court must assume the truth of the allegations for the purposes of
a demurrer. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant Aki Kawamata is
Plaintiff’s employer, both on his own and as an alter ego of Defendant Autism
Spectrum Support Center.
III.
Conclusion
The Demurrer is OVERRULED.