Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV30256, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV30256    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV30256 Enedino Espinoza v. Target Corporation, et al.

Tuesday, April 8, 2025

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING DEMURRER BY DEFENDANT, TARGET CORPORATION.

 

                                                                                         I.         BACKGROUND

      Plaintiff brings these claims against Defendants in various capacities as a consumer of services and products of Defendant Target Corporation (Target) where Plaintiff was subjected to an unsafe and hostile environment. Plaintiff also alleges that he was a defendant in two underlying cases referred to as the “Buddenberg” and “Molina/Song” cases, wherein Defendants breached their duty to defend and indemnify Plaintiff, as an employee of Defendant, Watermark Security Group, Inc., pursuant to contract.  

      At the time Plaintiff was employed by Watermark, he was posted to Target’s premises where he alleges he was attacked by assailants. Watermark is responsible for his injuries. Watermark harassed Plaintiff by removing him from his position and told him would no longer be provided regular employment. Watermark refused to accommodate Plaintiff’s disabilities. Plaintiff alleges Watermark wrongfully terminated him when he informed Watermark that he had retained a worker's compensation attorney for his workplace injuries.    

                                                                                          II.        ARGUMENTS

      Defendant Target demurs specifically to the claims alleged against it, in part because Plaintiff has the same claims pending against Target in another matter bearing Case No. 23STCV19129 Espinoza v. Target Corporation, et al. (Espinoza I). Additionally, Plaintiff’s injury claims against Target are the subject of Plaintiff’s first amended cross-complaint (FAXC) in Case No. 22STCV40016 Buddenberg v. Espinoza (Buddenberg case.)

      The court grants Defendant’s request to take judicial notice of the existence of these actions over Plaintiff’s objections. Judicial notice of court records is permitted. (Evid. Code, §452(d).)

                                                                                           III.       DISCUSSION

      Before reaching the merits of the demurrer and motion to strike, the existence of other cases asserting the same claims as Defendant argues raises the issue of whether the identical matters should be related.

      The operative complaint in Espinoza I (-9129) (third amended complaint) alleges that Plaintiff was a victim of a crime while providing services to Defendants while working as an employee of Watermark.

“Plaintiff brings this action in multiple capacities: (1) As a victim of a violent crime who suffered injury while providing “security” service for the Defendants while working as the employee of Watermark at the subject premises, and; (2) as a consumer of Defendants’ services and goods who was owed duties by Defendants and whose civil rights were violated. At all relevant times herein, Defendants, DOES, through their agents and employees, were the owners, operators, managers and agents responsible for the subject premises, and security therefore, operating in Los Angeles County.” (Def. RJN, Ex 3 ¶ 2.)

      Plaintiff also alleges he was subjected to a hostile environment at the subject premises. (Def. RJN, Ex 3, FAC ¶ 10.)

Compare to Espinoza II (this case):

“Plaintiff brings this action in multiple capacities in which he acted concurrently: (1) as a victim who suffered injury while providing uniformed armed “security” services for Defendant TARGET while working as the employee of Defendant WATERMARK and a contractor of TARGET at the subject premises and other locations, and an employee of Defendant WATERMARK who they discriminated against, harassed retaliated against and wrongfully terminated, (2) as a party who was wrongfully included in lawsuits as a Co-Defendant who was entitled to defense and indemnify by Defendants and whose non-waivable rights to reimbursement of his expenses have been interfered with by the Defendants, (3) as an injured consumer due to wrongful conduct which concurrently occurred while he was as a consumer of TARGET’s services and products who was owed additional duties by TARGET.” (Complaint herein.)

      Plaintiff alleges here that as a consumer of Target, he was subjected to an unsafe and hostile environment. (Complaint, ¶ 4.)

      Plaintiff is a defendant in Case No. 22STCV40016 Buddenberg v. Enedino Espinoza, et al., which relates to the allegations in this case because Plaintiff’s injury claims arise out of an altercation involving Buddenberg while at Target. (Def. RJN, Ex. 4.)

      Plaintiff filed a first amended cross complaint (FAXC) in the Buddenberg against Buddenberg and Target for what appears to be the same occurrences and events alleged in this action. Plaintiff also alleges that Target and Watermark should be required to defend and indemnify him in the Buddenberg action. (Def. RJN, Ex. 4 ¶ 44.)

      In this action, the first cause of action is for total and equitable indemnity arising out of the Buddenberg action. (Complaint, 19:8-10.)

      In this action, Plaintiff brings a Bane Civil Rights claim under Civ. Code, § 52.1 for violation of his civil rights by subjecting him to threats, intimidation and coercion. (Complaint, ¶ 85.)  Espinoza asserts the same cause of action in his FAXC filed in Buddenberg. (Def. RJN, Ex 4, ¶ 78.)

      The court’s file does not reflect that a notice of related case has been filed in Espinoza I, the Buddenberg action, or this action. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.300, subd. (b), ["Whenever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case."].)   

      The duty to provide notice that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding is a continuing duty. (Id. Rule 3.300 subd. (f).)

                                                                               IV.       CONCLUSION

      Accordingly, the parties are ordered to comply with Rule 3.300, prepare, file and serve a Notice of Related Cases in each of the cases with overlapping claims: 22STCV40016, 23STCV19129, and 24STCV30256 for determination of whether these cases should be related and transferred by the court with the earliest filed case. (Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.300 subd. (h)(1)(A).)

      The hearing on Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike are continued to May 13, 2025.