Lawzilla Additional Information
The Los Angeles Superior Court online records indicate the attorney for plaintiff Rolando Sabilla is Edward M. Chavez, State Bar number 146133, with a history of discipline and actual suspension from the State Bar.

Defendants NHK LABORATORIES, INC., NHK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, M. AMIRUL KARIM and NASIMA KARIM’s demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 1st (“solicitation of employee by misrepresentation”) and 4th (economic interference); otherwise SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. C.C.P. § 430.10(e).

Plaintiff ROLANDO SABILLA asserts 14 separate causes of action arising from his alleged wrongful termination. As alleged, he began working for defendant NHK in February 2007 under “work visa status.” Comp., ¶9. Defendant Karim, NHK’s president, allegedly promised that once plaintiff obtained an HIB work visa and permanent residency, he would be made Controller of the company and paid $33.63/hour. ¶10; Exh. 1. In November 2009, plaintiff obtained that status and the parties entered into a 5-year written employment contract, until November 16, 2014. ¶12, Exh. 2. Plaintiff alleges he was terminated on July 2, 2103, in breach of that agreement. ¶14.

Defendants argue that the 1st (“solicitation of employee by misrepresentation”), 2nd and 5th (fraud) and 3rd (negligent misrepresentation) causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations. C.C.P. §338(d) (providing for a three-year statute for fraud claims). The statute provides that accrual of the claim does not occur until discovery of the underlying facts constituting fraud. Defendant states that plaintiff should have known of a “potential variance” of his pay rate by October 2009, which is the date of defendant’s letter to the Department of Homeland Security regarding its job offer to plaintiff. Comp., Exh. 1. The Court disagrees, as the letter itself references the $33.63 rate he is to be paid and, in any event, a “potential” issue does not trigger the statute of limitations. The demurrer is overruled on that ground.

Defendants also demur on the ground that the copy of the employment agreement attached to the pleading is incomplete. Plaintiff argues that he only had an electronic version of the contract (the printed version attached), but concedes that defendants’ Exhibit A appears to be the entire agreement. It is generally required that a written agreement be attached to a complaint arising therefrom. Otworth v. Southern Pacific Transp. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452. Leave to amend is granted so that plaintiff may incorporate the full agreement into the pleading.
Plaintiff must also acknowledge the terms of the contract in drafting the amended complaint. Notably, paragraph 5 (which is omitted from the copy attached to the pleading) appears to be an “at-will” provision. While the contract may be subject to various interpretations, the allegations in the complaint cannot simply ignore a material term of the writing. Plaintiff must allege a reasonable interpretation of the integrated contract which supports his claims (including both the term of his employment and the compensation owed). The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the wrongful termination/breach (6th) and breach of implied covenant (7th) causes of action.

The above-described defect renders the pleading uncertain. The fraud claims, governed by rules requiring particularity, are insufficiently pled. Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631. The causes of action must be pled in light of both the existence of and terms of the employment contract. See Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543 (discussing limitations on fraud claims in a breach of contract setting). Finally, plaintiff should avoid alleging multiple, duplicative causes of action for fraud. The demurrer to the 1st cause of action for “solicitation of employee by misrepresentation” is sustained without leave to amend, as there exists no such cause of action.

In opposition, plaintiff did not address defendants’ challenges to the other causes of action.

As alleged, the cause of action for economic interference (4th) fails as a matter of law. A party to a contract cannot be held liable for interference. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

The Court also finds the 8th (wrongful termination/public policy), 12th (discrimination), 13th (retaliation) and 14th (harassment) causes of action inadequately pled. The facts alleged to do not rise to the level of actionable conduct, and do not include the requisite specificity (dates, etc). Plaintiff should be mindful of the arguments raised in the demurrer (i.e. the elements of each cause of action).

The remainder of the claims (pertaining to wages/payroll under the Labor Code) are insufficient as pled. It appears that plaintiff was not given accurate payroll records, but he must plead the relevant time periods for which he was not paid and the other Labor Code violations as particularly as possible with the information he has. Leave to amend is granted.

Finally, the individual defendants are not the alleged employer, and thus cannot be held liable for breach of contract or wrongful termination. If plaintiff elects to assert claims against them, the allegations must be specific enough to place each defendant on notice of the charges against him or her.