Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV30451, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30451    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 39

Marta Lopez v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, et al.

Case No. 22STCV30451

Demurrer and Motion to Strike

            Plaintiff Marta Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Southern California Permanente Medical Group (“SCPMG”), Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“KFH”), and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“KFHP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), racial discrimination under FEHA, and failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA.  Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages.  Defendants demur to the complaint and move to strike the prayer for punitive damages.

            Plaintiff does not clearly allege which of these entities is her immediate employer, though she suggests that she worked for SCPMG, which is located in Los Angeles County.  Plaintiff suggests that KFH and KFHP are not her direct employer because they are located in Alameda County.  Instead, Plaintiff alleges that KFH and KFHP are proper defendants under an integrated enterprise theory.  “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 her allegations that KFH and KFHP are proper defendants in this case.  Her 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.)  Defendants’ demurrer is sustained with respect to KFH and KFHP.  The Court does not afford leave to amend, as Plaintiff proffered no facts suggesting that an amendment would be successful.  However, Plaintiff is authorized to conduct discovery on this issue and, if appropriate, she may seek leave to amend to add KFH and/or KFHP as defendants in the future.

            Defendants’ demurrer is overruled on all other grounds, as Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state causes of action against SCPMG.  The Court denies the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages.  Plaintiff alleges that SCPMG manufactured a reason to terminate her, which may support a claim for punitive damages.  (See Colucci v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 442, 455.) 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The demurrer is sustained with respect to KFH and KFHP without leave to amend. 

            2.         Plaintiff is authorized to conduct discovery on whether there are sufficient facts to satisfy the integrated enterprise theory with respect to KFH and/or KFHP and may file a motion for leave to amend, if appropriate.

            3.         The motion to strike is denied.

            4.         SCPMG shall file an answer within thirty (30) days.

            5.         The Court sets the following dates:

                        Final Status Conference:         March 29, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.

                        Trial:                                        April 9, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.

The Court orders the parties to comply with all courtroom procedures for Department #39.  The parties shall post jury fees per Code of Civil Procedure section 631.  If jury fees are not posted within ten (10) days, the parties shall waive jury.

            6.         Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.