2017-00215263-CU-MC

Balwinder Patrola vs. Sacramento International Airport

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer to Unverified 2nd Amended Complaint

Filed By: Vierra, Sierra

Appearance required by all parties, either in person or court-call:

Defendants’ counsel’s declaration fails to indicate the parties met and conferred “in person or by telephone” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41.

Prior to the hearing, the parties shall meet and confer in person or by telephone as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. The parties shall then be prepared to discuss the results of their meet and confer efforts at the hearing.

Assuming the parties persuade the Court at the hearing that they have satisfied the meet and confer requirements of section 430.41, and that those meet and confer efforts did not resolve any of the issues raised in the demurrer, the Court is prepared to rule as follows.

Defendants Sacramento Independent Taxi Owners Association’s (erroneously sued as Sacramento International Airport Independent Taxi Owners Association) (“SITOA”) demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is UNOPPOSED and is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice of documents filed in this Court is granted.

In this action, Balwinder Patrola (“Plaintiff’), who is self represented, sues Defendant Sacramento Independent Taxi Owners Association’s (erroneously sued as Sacramento International Airport Independent Taxi Owners Association, All Members) (“Defendants”) based on his unsuccessful attempts to gain membership to SITOA.

Plaintiff’s original complaint in this action was filed on July 10, 2017, alleging Defendants “violated individual’s rights of equal opportunity, fair housing act and civil rights act.” Defendants demurred to Plaintiff’s complaint, asserting its allegations failed to state a claim, were time-barred, were uncertain, and suffered from misjoinder of the individual SITOA members. In its unchallenged tentative ruling of September 20, 2017, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 4, 2017, alleging a single cause of action for violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200. Defendants demurred to the FAC on the grounds that Plaintiff’s allegations were

barred by collateral estoppel, the statute of limitations, uncertainty, and misjoinder. In its tentative ruling, the Court sustained Defendants’ unopposed demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiff then appeared at the hearing and disputed the tentative ruling. Plaintiff, via an interpreter, represented that he wished to assert claims that were not time-barred. The Court then vacated its tentative ruling and granted Plaintiff leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed his SAC on January 2, 2018, alleging one cause of action for unfair competition in violation of the UCL. Plaintiff alleges he unsuccessfully attempted to gain membership to SITAO on numerous occasions and applied for membership every time membership applications were accepted. The SAC is not substantially different from the FAC, except Plaintiff has added an allegation regarding an application he submitted in November of 2014 (SAC ¶ 2), a claim that his 2014 application was denied based on his filing a complaint in court against SITOA (SAC ¶ 16), and an allegation regarding a prior complaint he filed in this Court in 2015 (SAC ¶ 22).

Defendants now demur to the SAC on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, is ambiguous and uncertain, and there is a misjoinder of parties. Defendants contend Plaintiff has failed to identify any law supporting his “unlawful” claim under the UCL and even if the claim is liberally construed to arise under FEHA, Plaintiff fails to allege SITOA is an employer subject to FEHA. Defendants further contend Plaintiff’s “unfair” claim under the UCL fails because he has not alleged he was a consumer of SITOA’s services who has suffered an injury in fact as a result.

Indeed, in order to state a claim under the UCL, Plaintiff must plead a violation of another law which is then “borrowed” for purposes of the UCL. (See Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 383.) The Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed to allege any law that he contends has been violated. The only legal authority on which Plaintiff basis his claim is section 17200. To the extent Plaintiff’s SAC is liberally construed and his allegations regarding SITOA’s “illegal hiring and employment practices” (SAC ¶ 20) are interpreted as being brought pursuant to FEHA, Plaintiff has also failed to allege that SITAO is an employer, labor organization, employment agency, or apprenticeship subject to FEHA.

As to Plaintiff’s “unfair” claim under the UCL, Defendants contend he lacks standing because Plaintiff has failed to allege he was a consumer of SITOA’s services who was injured due to the unfair practices. The purpose of the UCL is to “protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services.” (Kwikset Corp . v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 320.) “‘[A]n “unfair” business practice occurs when that practice “offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.”” (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 80-81.) The Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts indiciating how he “suffered injury in fact” as a result of any alleged unfair competition by SITOA. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204.)

The demurrer based on uncertainty is sustained on the grounds that Plaintiff’s SAC again names both SITOA and its individual members as defendants to this suit, but fails to attribute any cause of action to an individual member. And, as to the individual defendants, the demurrer is also sustained on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because no facts are alleged as to any

conduct of the individual members.

Since Plaintiff has failed to oppose the demurrer or provide any facts that would cure the defects, no further leave to amend is granted. A court may sustain a demurrer with or without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc. 472a(c).) Leave to amend a defective complaint should be denied where no liability exists under substantive law. (Rotolo v San Jose Sports & Entertainment, LLC (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 307, 321.) A demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend absent a showing by plaintiff that a reasonable possibility exists that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The burden of proving such reasonable possibility rests squarely on the plaintiff. (Torres v City of Yorba Linda (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1041.) Plaintiff has not met that burden.

Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order and proposed judgment of dismissal for the Court’s signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312.