Judge: Michael Small, Case: 23STCV10967, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10967    Hearing Date: October 27, 2023    Dept: 57

 In case number 21STCV34981, Defendants Leonardo and Zoraida Davila (collectively, "the Davilas") have filed a motion to dismiss or strike the complaint of Plaintiff Rita Iglecias filed in case number 23STCV10967 .  The two cases have been deemed related. But they have not been consolidated.  Thus, the Davilas should have filed their motion to dismiss or strike in case number 23STCV10967.  
In any event, the motion to dismiss or strike is untimely with respect to Leonardo Davila because the motion was filed more than 30 days after Mr. Davila was served with the complaint.   Absent a stipulated extension or an extension from the Court, Mr. Davila's deadline for filing the motion was 30 days after service of the complaint.  (Plaintiff filed the proof of service of the case number 23STCV10967 complaint, but she did so in case number 21STCV34981.)   Furthermore, the motion to dismiss is premature with respect to Zoraida Davila because she has not been served with the complaint.  The motion purports to be filed by Zoraida through a "special appearance."   It is not clear that one can specially appear in a case to seek  an order dismissing or striking the complaint.

For the three aforementioned  procedural reasons, the motion to dismiss or strike Iglecias's complaint in case number 23STCV10967 is denied.
 
Substantively, however, the motion to dismiss or strike seems sound.  The Court is in general agreement with the Davilas that Iglecias's complaint contains claims against the Davilas under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") that the Court concluded were time-barred.  The Court reached that conclusion in a ruling  that granted in part and denied in part a motion by Iglecias in case number 21STCV34981 to amend her complaint to add the Davilas as Defendants alongside the then-sole Defendant, United Finishing Apparel ("UFA").  The part of that motion that the Court denied included Igelcias's attempt to add the Davilas as Defendants to assert FEHA claims against them.  Igelicais had already asserted FEHA claims against UFA, which were not time-barred. The Court does not understand how it is that Igelicas can avoid the statute of limitations on the same FEHA claims against the Davilas that the Court previously held were time-barred by bringing a new action against them.   Iglecias's brief in opposition to the Davilas motion to dismiss  or strike the complaint in the new action, i.e. 23STCV10967, does not offer an adequate an answer to that question.

The Court is filing this tentative ruling in both case number 21STCV34981 and case number 23STCV10967