Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV16800, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV16800    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., Ryder Systems, Inc., and Jennifer Levenhagen

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Cindy Ramos

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with the demurrer.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Cindy Ramos (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint in this action on April 4, 2023 against defendants Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., Ryder Systems, Inc., and Jennifer Levenhagen (“Defendants”).  The First Amended Complaint alleges four causes of action for (1) whistleblower retaliation (Lab. Code, §§ 1102.5, 1102.6), (2) whistleblower retaliation (Lab. Code, §§ 6310, 6311), (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendants now move the court for an order sustaining their demurrer to the fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

DISCUSSION

The court sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) 

First, the court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that Defendants’ conduct, in denying Plaintiff’s request to work from home due to her concerns with the lack of safety precautions against COVID-19 and acting negatively toward Plaintiff (including by falsely accusing her of not cooperating with another supervisor), was not “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community” and therefore finds that Plaintiff has not alleged the element of extreme and outrageous conduct by Defendants.  (FAC ¶¶ 31, 35; Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051 [internal quotations omitted] [elements of cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress].) 

Second, the court finds that this cause of action is preempted by the workers’ compensation scheme because it is based on emotional injuries sustained at the workplace and in the course of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants.  (FAC ¶¶ 31, 35, 75-76; Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 144, 161 [“Physical and emotional injuries sustained in the course of employment are preempted by the workers’ compensation scheme and generally will not support an independent cause of action[;]” this rule applies to claims for emotional injuries caused by workplace discipline and termination]; Brooks v. Corecivic of Tennessee LLC (S.D. Cal. 2020) 2020 WL 5294614 at pp. *2 [finding that California law applies], 7 [finding that intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity rule because it was based on the employer-defendant’s failure to maintain a safe and healthy workplace, which “is inextricably part of the compensation bargain”].)

The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff “must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)  Plaintiff requests leave to amend, asserting that she “can add additional facts that will further bolster her claims.”  (Opp., p. 8:17-18.)  However, Plaintiff has not sufficiently set forth the facts that she plans to allege that would (1) allege the element of extreme and outrageous conduct, and (2) remove this cause of action from the scope of the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule.  Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has not supported her request for leave to amend and therefore sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.

ORDER

            The court sustains defendants Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., Ryder Systems, Inc., and Jennifer Levenhagen’s demurrer to plaintiff Cindy Ramos’s fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress without leave to amend.

            The court orders defendants Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., Ryder Systems, Inc., and Jennifer Levenhagen to file an answer to plaintiff Cindy Ramos’s First Amended Complaint no later than 10 days from the date of this order.

            The court orders defendants Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., Ryder Systems, Inc., and Jennifer Levenhagen to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 11, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court