Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24AHCV00124, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24AHCV00124    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On January 22, 2024, Leah Simon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants The AM Agency, LLC (“AM”), Ruben Villa, Richard Argon, and Harold Laparra for: (1) sexual harassment, (2) failure to prevent and investigate sexual harassment in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On September 4, 2024, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to add Emcor Government Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) as Doe 1.

On May 1, 2025, Defendant filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant based on the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) fail because she did not name Defendant in either of her charges filed with the California Civil Rights Department (“CRD”). Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to include any factual allegations whatsoever against it.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. [Citations.]” (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.) The court must assume the truth of all properly pleaded material facts and allegations, but not contentions or conclusions of fact or law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Wise v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 725, 738.) “A judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant is appropriate when the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii).)” (Kapsimallis v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 667, 672.) “Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. [Citation.]” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

III.        DISCUSSION

A.   Failure to State Sufficient Facts

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the Complaint fails to include any factual allegations regarding any misconduct by Defendant. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action against “Defendant AM” and the First Cause of Action against Ruben Villa, Richard Argon, and Harold Laparra (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”). Defendant, sued as Doe 1, is mentioned nowhere in the Complaint other than Plaintiff’s claim that she is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 100 and that “each of the remaining co-defendants, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course, scope and under the authority of his/her/its agency, employment, or representative capacity, with the consent of her/his/its co-defendant.” (Compl., ¶¶ 7-8.) There is no other mention of the Doe defendants anywhere else.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion for judgment on the pleadings on this ground with 20 days’ leave to amend.

B.   Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Exhaustion of the administrative remedies under the FEHA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining FEHA claims, and the failure to exhaust administrative remedies requires that any such FEHA cause of action be dismissed. (Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1718, 1724; Okoli v. Lockheed Technical Operations Co. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1607, 1613.) The administrative exhaustion requirement is satisfied if FEHA claims in a judicial complaint are “ ‘like and reasonably related to’ ” those in the DFEH complaint or “likely to be uncovered in the course of a DFEH investigation” (Clark v. Superior Court (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 289, 301.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot maintain or bring a FEHA claim against it without having named it in her CRD charge. (Motion, p. 5.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot cure this defect through amendment because over three years have passed, since the adverse action alleged in the charge took place on September 7, 2021. Thus, Defendant requests the Court grant its motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s FEHA claims without leave to amend. 

Defendant’s argument relies on the content of Plaintiff’s charges filed with the CRD and purports to attach them to its request for judicial notice as Exhibit A. However, the Exhibit A attached to the request for judicial notice is simply a copy of Complaint filed with the Court on January 22, 2024. Therefore, a copy of the charges is not before the Court for its review and the Court denies the motion for judgment on the pleadings on this ground, without prejudice to raising the issue again in response to Plaintiff’s amended pleading.

IV.        CONCLUSION

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 3rd day of June 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.