Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00139, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00139 Hearing Date: August 6, 2024 Dept: A
22CMCV00139
Jorge Delgado v. FS Precision Tech. Co., LLC, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint
alleges that Defendants employed Plaintiff on December 6, 2021, as a full-time
“finisher.” Defendants allegedly terminated Plaintiff because of a disability that
required Plaintiff to wear a 2-inch custom, platform shoe. Plaintiff alleges
claims for wrongful termination in violation of contract and against public
policy, disability discrimination, and for Defendant’s denial of a workplace
environment free from discrimination and/or retaliation.
On February 15,
2024, Plaintiff filed an amendment naming Fu Sheng USA as Doe 1, and F Sheng
Industrial Co. Ltd as Doe 2 (“Defendants”)
II.
ARGUMENTS
Defendants
demur to the entire complaint for failure to state causes of action. Defendants
contend that the complaint mistakenly identifies Defendants as Plaintiff’s
employer based on judicially noticed records of the Secretary of State. Defendants
are not liable for the alleged misconduct. The complaint is uncertain.
In
opposition, Plaintiff objects to the submission of records from the Secretary
of State. Defendant introduces extrinsic evidence that the court should not
consider. All alleged facts are accepted as true for the purposes of a
demurrer. Whether Defendants are Plaintiff’s “employer” requires consideration
of numerous facts not alleged in the complaint. Alternatively, Plaintiff asks
for leave to amend.
In
reply, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support
liability that Defendants are “corporate parents” of Precision Tech Company,
LLC (“Precision”). Corporate parents are not liable for employment claims of
their subsidiaries. Demurring Defendants did not employ Plaintiff.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The
bases for demurrer are limited by statute and may be sustained for reasons
including failure to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and
uncertainty. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) A demurrer “tests the sufficiency of a complaint as
a matter of law and raises only questions of law.” (Schmidt
v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) The court must
assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts
that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3)
judicially noticed matters. (Blank
v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The court may not consider
contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore
v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638.)
IV.
DISCUSSION
The
court grants Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the existence of Defendants’
filings with the Secretary of State -- official acts of a state including
records, orders, and reports of its administrative agencies. (Rodas
v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 518; Evid. Code, § 452(c).)
The existence of the corporate records does not demonstrate that Defendants did
not employ Plaintiff.
The
court cannot take judicial notice of the declaration of Yun Huang, who asserts there
is no relationship between Defendants and Precision and did not employ
Plaintiff. (Huang decl., ¶¶ 11-15.) These are asserted facts extrinsic to the
complaint and are disputed by Plaintiff’s allegations which the court accepts
as true. These assertions are also legal conclusions for the court to decide.
Plaintiff
alleges all claims against Defendant Precision including Doe Defendants (Complaint
¶ 3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
were direct employers. As Defendants correctly concede, the existence of an
employment relationship requires consideration of a number of factors and 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 plaintiff's performance of employment duties.” (Vernon
v. State of California (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 114, 124-125 ["There
is no magic formula for determining
whether an organization is a joint employer. Rather, the court must analyze
‘myriad facts surrounding the employment relationship in question.’ [Citation.]
No one factor is decisive. [Citation.]” (Choe–Rively v. Vietnam Veterans of
America (D.Del.2001) 135 F.Supp.2d 462, 470; see also Graves v. Lowery
(3rd Cir.1997) 117 F.3d 723, 729.) “[T]he precise contours of an employment
relationship can only be established by a careful factual inquiry.”.)
Defendants
dispute the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations; this is not an appropriate
consideration at the demurrer stage.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.
Defendants are ordered to answer within 10 days.