Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 23STCV20777, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV20777 Hearing Date: February 7, 2024 Dept: 19
RULING
After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, Defendant Agritec International Ltd. Which Will Do Business In California As Cleantech Environmental, Inc.’s Demurer is OVERRULED.
Defendant to file an Answer within ten (10) days.
Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an employment case. Plaintiff Israel Balderama (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendant Agritec International Ltd. Which Will Do Business In California As Cleantech Environmental, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging the following causes of action:
1. Discrimination, And Retaliation Based On Disability (Government Code Section 12900 Et. Seq);
2. Violation Of Government Code Section 12945.2 California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”);
3. Violation Of Labor Code Section 1102.5;
4. Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy; and
5. Intentional Infliction Of Emotion Distress.
Defendant filed the instant Demurrer By Defendant Agritec International Ltd. Which Will Do Business In California As Cleantech Environmental, Inc. To Complaint (the “Demurrer”).
GROUNDS FOR DEMURRER
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e), Defendant demurs to each cause of action on the ground that they fail to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
MEET/CONFER
The Court finds that Defendant satisfied the meet and confer requirements. (See Michael F. Frank Decl.)
DISCUSSION
I. DEMURRER
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 968, 994.) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.” (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)
1. All Causes of Action: Failure to Sufficiently Allege Discrimination/Retaliation
Defendant demurs to all causes of action on the ground that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege that Defendant unlawfully terminated his employment, arguing that it is apparent from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff’s employment was terminated for legitimate business reasons, namely, that Plaintiff was working unauthorized overtime, and the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege that his termination was pretextual. (Demurrer, pp. 5-7.)
A prima facie case of discrimination requires the plaintiff to plead and prove “that (1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355.)
The Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges that Plaintiff had a physical disability and therefore was a member of a protected class, (Compl., ¶¶ 6-7), that Plaintiff was performing competently in the position he held, (id. at ¶¶ 5-10), that he suffered an adverse employment action, (id. at ¶ 9), and circumstances suggesting discriminatory motive. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-9, 11, 13-16.)
For purposes of a demurrer, the Court accepts as true the allegations in the Complaint and does not make any determination as to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, yet Defendant’s arguments use the three-step burden shifting test applied to motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of claims for discrimination or retaliation under FEHA as set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792. (See Demurrer at pp. 5-7.) Plaintiff is not required, for purposes of the instant Demurrer, to present evidence and prove the allegations in the Complaint.
The Court also notes that the elements for Plaintiff’s Second, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action are different than the elements for the First Cause of Action.
For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Demurrer to all causes of action on the ground that the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege discrimination and retaliation.
2. Fifth Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903 (internal quotations omitted).)
“A defendant’s conduct is outrageous when it is so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Jackson v. Mayweather (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 234, 257 (internal citations and quotations omitted).) “On the spectrum of offensive conduct, outrageous conduct is that which is the most extremely offensive.” (Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1129).) “Depending on the idiosyncrasies of the plaintiff, offensive conduct which falls along the remainder of the spectrum may be irritating, insulting or even distressing but it is not actionable and must simply be endured without resort to legal redress.” (Id.) “Mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities do not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct.” (Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 574, 597, disapproved of on other grounds in Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995 (internal citation and quotations omitted).)
Further, the conduct must be directed at the plaintiff, intended or calculated to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress, or, where reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s interests is the theory of recovery, done in the plaintiff’s presence with reckless disregard of the probability that those acts will cause plaintiff severe emotional distress. (See, e.g., Christensen, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 903-906; Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001-1002.)
A determination of the outrageousness of the conduct requires “a case-by-case appraisal of conduct filtered through the prism of the appraiser’s values, sensitivity threshold, and standards of civility.” (Yurick, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at 1128.)
“‘Regarding emotional distress, the trial court initially determines whether a defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery. Where reasonable men can differ, the jury determines whether the conduct has been extreme and outrageous to result in liability. Otherwise stated, the court determines whether severe emotional distress can be found; the jury determines whether on the evidence it has, in fact, existed.’” (Plotnik v. Meihaus (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1590, 1614 (quoting Godfrey v. Steinpress (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 154, 173).)
The Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges severe or extreme emotional distress. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, “extreme and severe anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, mental suffering, nervousness, tension, anxiety, and depression, and causing Plaintiff to incur future medical bills, all to Plaintiff's detriment….” (Compl. at ¶ 59.) Thus, the Fifth Cause of Action is not premised solely on the conclusory allegation that Plaintiff suffered “severe and extreme mental and emotional distress” as a result of Defendant’s conduct.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Demurrer in its entirety.