Judge: Richard B. Ulmer, Jr., Case: CGC22598560, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling
On the Law and Motion Calendar for Monday, May 22, 2023, line 8. DEFENDANT DOLBY LABORATORIES, INC.'S DEMURRER to 1ST Amended COMPLAINT. Defendant Dolby Laboratories, Inc.'s (Dolby) demurrer to the first amended complaint (FAC) is overruled. Plaintiff Farzaneh Payrovi (Payrovi) alleges that Dolby, her former employer, discriminated against her based on her sex. FAC 6. Payrovi alleges that the most recent act of discrimination occurred "at some date after April 26, 2018" when Dolby closed its investigation of her complaint and refused to hire her into a permanent position. Id. at 15. Payrovi filed a pre-form inquiry with the DFEH on March 14, 2019, and her verified complaint on March 17, 2020 Id. at 37, 41. Dolby argues that the FAC is barred by the one-year statute of limitations of a FEHA claim because she filed a pre-form inquiry, but not a verified complaint, before the statute of limitations expired. Not so. The Senate Amendment of Assembly Bill 9 "clarif[ies] that the term 'filing a complaint' means filing a verified complaint and specifies that the operative date of the verified complaint relates back to the filing of the intake form." Friedman Decl., Ex. A. And while AB9 did not take effect until January 1, 2020, this amendment clarified the law, rather than changed the law. GTE Sprint Communications Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 827, 833 ["Where a statute or amendment clarifies existing law, such action is not considered a change because it merely restates the law as it was at the time, and retroactivity is not involved."]. The operative date of the verified complaint filed on March 17, 2020 relates back to the pre-form inquiry on March 14, 2019. Dolby contends that AB explicitly states that the act shall not be interpreted to revive lapsed claims. But, for the reason stated, the claim had not lapsed. Dolby's request for judicial notice is granted, but not as to the truth of the matters stated therein. See Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375 ["While courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein."]. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and