Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV15069, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15069    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendants Watts Learning Center, Inc.       

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

(1)   Demurrer to Complaint

(2)   Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

The court considered the moving and reply papers filed in connection with the demurrer and motion to strike.

The court did not consider the filing entitled “Plaintiff’s Opposition to Demurrer,” filed with the court on January 2, 2024, because (1) it does not attach a proof of service stating that the opposition papers were served on defendant Watts Learning Center, Inc. as required, and           (2) counsel for Watts Learning Center, Inc. has stated that she was not served with the opposition papers.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [“All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days” before the hearing]; Frontman Decl., ¶ 5.) 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Kendrick Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 28, 2023 against defendant Watts Learning Center, Inc. (“Defendant”), alleging nine causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) harassment in violation of FEHA; (5) failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 98.6; (7) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (8) retaliation in violation of Labor Code sections 6310 and 6311; and (9) retaliation in violation of Labor Code sections 6310 and 6311.

Defendant now moves the court for an order (1) sustaining its demurrer to each cause of action alleged by Plaintiff, and (2) striking from the Complaint the requests for attorney’s fees, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, and restitution.   

DEMURRER

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action for discrimination in violation of FEHA because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that (1) Plaintiff was subjected to adverse employment actions under circumstances suggesting a discriminatory motive, or (2) Defendant had a facially neutral practice or policy that had a disproportionate adverse effect on members of the protected classes.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Diego v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 338, 350 [elements of prima facie case for discrimination]; Rosenfeld v. Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 886, 893 [describing claims for disparate impact].)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged, for the reasons set forth in connection with the ruling on the first cause of action, facts establishing that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1318 [finding that there could be no claim for failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sex discrimination since no sex discrimination had been found].)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the third cause of action for retaliation in violation of FEHA because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that (1) Plaintiff engaged in protected activities, and (2) Defendant subjected Plaintiff to an adverse action because he engaged in those protected activities.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Meeks v. Autozone, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 855, 878-879 [elements of cause of action for retaliation].) 

            The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action for harassment in violation of FEHA because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged adequate facts showing that Defendant subjected Plaintiff to harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and created an abusive working environment.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 869 [describing actionable harassment under FEHA].)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action for failure to prevent harassment in violation of FEHA because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged, for the reasons set forth in connection with the ruling on the fourth cause of action, facts showing that Defendant subjected Plaintiff to harassment.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Dickson, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 1318.)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 98.6 because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that he “filed a bona fide complaint or claim or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or relating to . . . rights that are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner, made a written or oral complaint that [he] [was] owed unpaid wages, or . . . initiated any action or notice pursuant to section 2699, or . . . testified or [was] about to testify in a proceeding pursuant to that section, or . . . exercise[d] . . . any rights afforded” to him.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Lab. Code, § 98.6, subd. (a) [making unlawful the discharge or retaliation against an employee for engaging in that conduct].)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the seventh cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that he engaged in activities protected by section 1102.5, i.e., that he disclosed information that he had reasonable cause to believe disclosed a violation of law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Lab. Code, § 1102.5, subd. (b); St. Myers v. Dignity Health (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 301, 307 [“Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) prohibits retaliation for disclosing information about a violation or noncompliance with federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation”].)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 6310 because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that he (1) made an oral or written complaint regarding employee safety or health, (2) instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding relating to his rights, (3) participated in an occupational health and safety committee established by section 6401.7, or (4) reported a work-related fatality, injury, or illness.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Lab. Code, § 6310, subd. (a).)  

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 6310 because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that he engaged in activity protected by this statute, as set forth in connection with the court’s ruling on the eighth cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Lab. Code, § 6310, subd. (a).)

MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendant moves the court for an order striking the following from Plaintiff’s Complaint: (1) the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations; (2) the prayer for attorney’s fees;    (3) the prayer for interest; and (4) the prayer for restitution.

The court denies Defendant’s motion to strike as moot because the court has sustained the demurrer to all of the causes of action alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore those causes of action and the requests for relief have been removed from the Complaint.

ORDER

The court sustains defendant Watts Learning Center, Inc.’s demurrer to plaintiff Kendrick Jones’s Complaint.

The court denies as moot defendant Watts Learning Center, Inc.’s motion to strike.

The court grants plaintiff Kendrick Jones 20 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint that cures the defects described above.

The court orders defendant Watts Learning Center, Inc. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 20, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court