Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCVC01574, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCVC01574 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCVC01574
Jailyn Robateau v. Nationwide Guard Services
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
The first amended
complaint (“FAC”) alleges claims for negligence and premises liability arising
from the conditions of her work environment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant,
Nationwide Guard Services (“NGS”), did not provide her with the proper
“worker’s compensation” forms and did not address her complaints about the working
conditions.
Defendant
argues that the complaint is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the
Worker's Compensation Act (“WCA”). Plaintiff has applied with the Worker’s
Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”) to adjudicate her claim.
In
opposition, Plaintiff acknowledges that she was an “active worker on the clock at
the time of injury and was completing her work shift for NGS. (Opp. 15-17.)
Plaintiff believes she has viable claims and valid proof. Even if the claims
are barred by the WCA, Plaintiff suffered injury because of Defendant’s
negligence.
In reply,
Defendant argues that Plaintiff confirms her claims belong before the WCAB.
Plaintiff offers no grounds to avoid the exclusivity provisions of the WCA.
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.) In testing the complaint’s sufficiency, the court must
assume the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations as well as facts
that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded facts. The court
may also consider matters properly subject to judicial notice. (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.) Plaintiff is required to allege facts sufficient to
establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians
Service (2000) 81
Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. Code Civ.
Proc., § 430.10(e); (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27
Cal.4th 1112, 1126.)
There is
no dispute that Plaintiff’s injuries were suffered while she was actively
working, “on the clock” and completing her work shift for the company, NGS. (FAC, 2:14-16). Plaintiff’s claims are barred
by the exclusivity provisions of the WCA, which is her sole and exclusive
remedy for recovering damages sustained for injuries sustained while in the
course and scope of employment. (Lab.
Code, § 3600; Pichon
v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d
488, 500).
The
Court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s application
for adjudication of her claims before the WCAB, which is not reasonably subject
to dispute. (Horwitz Decl., Ex. E; Evid. Code, § 452(h).) Plaintiff attached a
letter to Defendant to her complaint stating that she completed two full months
of employment with NGS who allegedly did not address the unsanitary work
environment. (Complaint, .pdf page 5).
While
filing a claim with the WCAB does not necessarily preclude an action at law,
Plaintiff does not argue nor establish that the claims alleged here are exempt
from the exclusivity provisions. (Lee
v. West Kern Water Dist. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 606, 631.)
Ordinarily,
if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect in a complaint can be
cured by amendment, it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without
leave to amend. However, Plaintiff’s burden is to establish that the complaint
can be amended to survive the defects, and how that amendment will change the pleading’s legal effect. (Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department of Industrial Relations
(1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 298, 302.) Accordingly, the demurrer to the
first amended complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.