Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV13023, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV13023 Hearing Date: February 15, 2023 Dept: 39
Kenneth
Oleesky v. Lithia Motors, Inc., et al.
Case
No. 22STCV13023
Motion
to Strike
Plaintiff
Kenneth Oleesky (“Plaintiff”) filed this case against Lithia Motors, Inc.
(“Lithia”) and Van Nuys-L, Inc. (“Van Nuys-L”) asserting seven causes of action
under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and one cause of action for
failure to pay timely wages upon discharge, per Labor Code section 201(a). Lithia was named as a defendant in the
original complaint. Plaintiff added Van
Nuys-L by way of a Doe amendment on June 8, 2022.
Previously,
both Lithia and Van Nuys-L moved to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive
damages and related allegations. The
Court denied the motion to strike with respect to Lithia. (See Court’s Minute Order, dated October 19,
2022.) The Court granted the motion with
respect to Van Nuys-L, finding: “[T]he complaint provides no clarity concerning
the basis of liability for punitive damages against Van Nuys-L. This is especially true since Lithia and Van
Nuys-L are separate corporate entities.”
(Ibid.) The Court incorporates by
reference its order of October 19, 2022.
Plaintiff
filed a first amended complaint on November 8, 2022, and Defendants again move
to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations. In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that this
motion is an improper and untimely motion for reconsideration with respect to
Lithia because the Court has already ruled on that issue. Plaintiff’s counsel is correct. The Court orders the parties to comply with
Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 and provides notice that any future
violations shall be address with an order to show cause why sanctions should
not be imposed, per Code of Civil Procedure sections 1008(d) and 128.7.
The Court
previously noted that Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Lithia, and
Lithia made the decision to terminate him, which does not implicate Van
Nuys-L. Now, Plaintiff attempts to
pursue his claim for punitive damages against Van Nuys-L by arguing Lithia and
Van Nuys-L “are joint employers and/or an integrated enterprise.” “Corporate entities are presumed to have
separate existences, and the corporate form will be disregarded only when the
ends of justice require this result.” (Laird v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.
(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 727, 737, overruled on other grounds by Reid v.
Google, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 727.)
“An employee who seeks to hold a parent corporation liable for the acts
or omissions of its subsidiary on the theory that the two corporate entities
constitute a single employer has a heavy burden to meet under both California
and federal law.” (Ibid.) The
Court focuses on four factors: interrelation of operations, common management,
centralized control of labor relations, and common ownership or financial
control. (Ibid.) Common ownership or control is never enough
to establish parent liability. (Id.,
p. 738.) Plaintiff alleges no facts to
support these allegations. (See First
Amended Complaint, ¶ 10.) Rather, the
allegations are merely boilerplate, which the Supreme Court has
criticized. (Moore v. Regents of
University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 134, fn. 12.) This is not sufficient.
Based
upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. Defendants’ motion is denied with
respect to Lithia.
2. Defendants’ motion is granted with
respect to Van Nuys-L.
3. The Court denies leave to amend, as
Plaintiff does not proffer sufficient facts to persuade the Court that an
amendment would be successful.
4. This order is without prejudice to
Plaintiff conducting discovery on Van Nuys-L’s relationship with Lithia and, if
appropriate, moving to amend the operative complaint to re-allege the prayer
for punitive damages and related allegations.
5. Defendants’ counsel shall provide
notice and file proof of such with the Court.