Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV09606, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09606    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: 68

DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Yamato Transport U.S.A., Inc., et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Alicia Blancarte

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint

·         1^st Cause of Action: Sexual Harassment (Government Code 12940j)

·         3^rd Cause of Action: Hostile Work Environment (Government Code section 12940, et seq.)

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff, Alicia Blancarte was an employee of Defendant Yamato Transport U.S.A., Inc. from April 2022 to termination day on September 14, 2023. Defendants Efren Barragan, Erik Ramirez, and Maibe Crow were supervisors or assistant supervisors of Plaintiff during varying periods of employment.

Plaintiff alleges sexual harassment by Erik Ramirez, including unsolicited requests for contact outside of work, and remarks about Plaintiff’s appearance. Plaintiff complained to Effren Barragan, but the complaints were not addressed.

In October 2022, Plaintiff also suffered a workplace injury as a result of lifting a package. The injury led to physician restrictions on lifting, and follow-up appointments. Plaintiff alleges a lack of accommodation, and subsequent termination in retaliation.

On April 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint for 1. Sexual Harassment (Govt. Code §12940(j)); 2. Discrimination Based Upon Physical Disability (Govt. Code §12940); 3. Hostile Work Environment (Govt. Code §12940 et seq.); 4. Failure To Prevent Discrimination (Govt. Code §12940(k)); 5. Retaliation In Violation Of Public Policy (Govt. Code §12940 et seq.); 6. Harassment Based On Sex And Physical Disability (Govt. Code §12940 (a)); 7. Failure To Accommodate Physical Disability In Violation Of Govt. Code §12940(m); 8. Failure To Engage In A Good Faith Interactive Process In Violation Of Govt. Code §12940(n); and 9. Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy (Govt. Code §12940 et seq.). On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for 1. Sexual Harassment (Govt. Code §12940(j)); 2. Discrimination Based Upon Physical Disability (Govt. Code §12940); 3. Hostile Work Environment (Govt. Code §12940 et seq.); 4. Failure To Prevent Discrimination (Govt. Code §12940(k)); 5. Retaliation In Violation Of Public Policy (Govt. Code §12940 et seq.); 6. Failure To Accommodate Physical Disability In Violation Of Govt. Code §12940(m); 7. Failure To Engage In A Good Faith Interactive Process In Violation Of Govt. Code §12940(n); and 8. Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy (Govt. Code §12940 et seq.). On April 11, 2025, OSI Staffing, Inc. answered the first amended complaint.

RULING: Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

Defendants Yamato Transport U.S.A., Inc. (Yamato), Efren Barragan, and Maibe Crow, bring a demurrer to the first and third causes of action for Sexual Harassment (Government Code section 12940), and Hostile Work Environment (Government Code section 12940, et seq.) within the first amended complaint of Plaintiff Alicia Rios Blancarte. Defendants challenge the operative complaint due to lack of sufficient factual particularity, statutory compliance, and redundant claims. Plaintiff in opposition maintains the claims sufficiently articulate liability against all defendants. Defendants in reply reiterates the factual deficiency basis of the demurrer as to the first cause of action, and duplicative relief in the third cause of action, as well as a failure to respond to all challenges raised in the demurrer.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 [“[U]nder our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend.]

1^st Cause of Action: Sexual Harassment (Government Code 12940j)

Individual defendants Efren Barragan and Maibe Crow challenge the subject cause of action on grounds the allegations lacks sufficient facts as the two individual defendants. The individuals are identified as supervisor and assistant supervisor, with the basis of liability based on the failure of said individuals to address the claims of sexual harassment by Erik Hernandez. [First Amend. Comp., ¶¶ 16-18, 34-36.]

The claim as presented constitutes alleged inaction, which is not a basis for individual liability. “If a supervisor aids and abets sexual harassment of an employee, the supervisor is personally liable for money damages. A supervisor who, without more, fails to take action to prevent sexual harassment of an employee is not personally liable as an aider and abettor of the harasser, an aider and abettor of the employer or an agent of the employer.” (Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1331.) The operative complaint otherwise lacks any articulation of aiding and abetting simply based on said inaction. (Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 138, 146.)

Yamato is not challenging the subject cause of action. The court declines to consider the respondeat superior position of liability via the actions of Hernandez. Again, whatever the basis of liability against the corporate entity, Defendants present no factual or legal challenge to this portion of the cause of action.

Individual defendants also raise argument over the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. [Req. Jud. Not.] Plaintiff offers no apparent opposition to this position. The court finds support for the unopposed position in the demurrer.

The demurrer is sustained.

3^rd Cause of Action: Hostile Work Environment (Government Code section 12940, et seq.)

Yamato challenges the subject cause of action as redundant with the sexual harassment cause of action. Plaintiff offers opposition on the unchallenged factual and legal sufficiency to the cause of action, but no apparent opposition to the redundant cause of action position actually presented by Yamato in the demurrer. The court finds the unopposed position valid. The court declines to make the argument on behalf of Plaintiff. (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784–785 [“When [a party] fails to raise a point or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived”].)

The demurrer is sustained.

Given this is the first review of the action, the court sustains the demurrer with 30 days leave to amend. Plaintiff may NOT add any new causes of action, and may only amend the two challenged claims and introductory facts within the scope of the prior pleading. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.) Any additional or extrinsic additions will be subject to a motion to strike. Changes to the operative pleading seeking to alter the material terms of any purported agreements or representation may also be subject to a demurrer or motion to strike under the sham pleading standard.

“In response to a demurrer and prior to the case being at issue, a complaint or cross-complaint shall not be amended more than three times, absent an offer to the trial court as to such additional facts to be pleaded that there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured to state a cause of action. The three-amendment limit shall not include an amendment made without leave of the court pursuant to Section 472, provided the amendment is made before a demurrer to the original complaint or cross-complaint is filed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (e)(1), see Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (e)(1).) Again, this is the first review of the complaint.

Defendants give notice.