34-2015-00174376

Marcella Crisan vs. State of California

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint

Filed By: Garey, Meredith P.

Defendant Department of State Hospitals’ (“DSH”) demurrer to plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“2AC”) is OVERRULED, as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of plaintiff’s employment with defendant DSH and its predecessor, Department of Mental Health (“DMH”). She commenced this action in 2014 in Butte County and on 7/22/2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) which asserted two causes of action for disability discrimination and violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act at Government Code §8547 et seq. (“CWPA”) based on her employer’s 2011 decision to require plaintiff to report to work in Sacramento rather than continue working from her home in Chico, which plaintiff insists was a reasonable accommodation for a back injury suffered in a 2001 car accident.

Although DSH was previously successful in obtaining summary adjudication of plaintiff’s original two causes of action, plaintiff was recently granted leave to amend to now allege causes of action under the Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) for failure to accommodate disability and failure to engage in the interactive process. Plaintiff’s 2AC was filed on 11/13/2018, with a Notice of Errata on the following day.

Moving Papers. DSH now demurs to both causes of action in this 2AC on the ground they are time-barred. In particular, DSH contends that once plaintiff received her right-to-sue notice from the DFEH on 4/17/2013, she had just one year to file any and all of her claims under the FEHA but the new FEHA claims were not added until more than 5½ years after the 2013 right-to-sue notice. DSH further insists that the two new FEHA claims do not “relate back” to the First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) because the allegations in the 2AC do not arise from the same set of essential facts as were pled in the 1AC, which is confirmed by the fact plaintiff had to add “48 new separate facts to support her new causes of action” and this court’s own determination in connection with the earlier summary adjudication motion that the 1AC did not adequately allege facts necessary to support a claim for either failure to accommodate or failure to engage in the interactive process. (The court notes that DSH’s demurrer itself does not identify any claimed insufficiency of the factual allegations of the 2AC other than that the new causes of action are time-barred.)

Opposition. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the “relation back” doctrine does apply here since the causes of action alleged in the 2AC arise out of the same factual circumstances giving rise to the original complaint: Plaintiff had a disability and was accommodated but then suddenly she is no longer accommodated and suffers adverse employment actions. The failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process claims now asserted in the 2AC are not based on a new or different set of facts but are based on the same factual scenario giving rise to plaintiff’s original causes of action for disability discrimination and violation of the CWPA.

Analysis

According to recent published precedent, “Under the relation back doctrine, an amended complaint is deemed to have been filed at the time of the earlier complaint if the amended complaint ‘(1) rest[s] on the same general set of facts, (2) involve[s] the same injury, and (3) refer[s] to the same instrumentality…’” (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal.App.4th 824, 841 (italics in original) [citing Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 409].) This court is easily persuaded that the two newly-added causes of action satisfy each of these three requirements as they are based on the same general set of facts, involve the same alleged injury (although the theory of liability is somewhat different but even then, still pursuant to the FEHA) and refers to

the same instrumentality which caused plaintiff’s alleged injury and damages.

The present case is clearly distinguishable from Davaloo v. State Farm Ins. Co. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 409, where the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the relation back doctrine did not apply to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint against their insurer because their original complaints were entirely devoid of factual allegations and otherwise failed to meet California’s minimal fact-pleading requirements.

Consequently, the court finds that the relation back doctrine is applicable to the causes of action now asserted in the 2AC and the mere fact that plaintiff added new factual allegations in order to satisfy the unique prima facie elements for the new causes of action does not, without more, preclude application of the doctrine here.

Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, DSH’s demurrer to the 2AC must be and hereby is overruled.

If not already done, DSH to file and serve its answer to the 2AC no later than 12/28/2018.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Item 21 34-2015-00174376

Marcella Crisan vs. State of California

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Strike

Filed By: Garey, Meredith P.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties are directed to notify the clerk and opposing counsel at the time of the request which of paragraphs of the amended complaint will be addressed at the hearing. ***

Defendant Department of State Hospitals’ (“DSH”) motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“2AC”) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of plaintiff’s employment with defendant DSH and its predecessor, Department of Mental Health (“DMH”). She commenced this action in 2014 in Butte County and on 7/22/2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) which asserted two causes of action for disability discrimination and violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act at Government Code §8547 et seq. (“CWPA”) based on her employer’s 2011 decision to require plaintiff to report to work in Sacramento rather than continue working from her home in Chico, which plaintiff insists was a reasonable accommodation for a back injury suffered in a 2001 car accident.

Although DSH was previously successful in obtaining summary adjudication of plaintiff’s original two causes of action, plaintiff was recently granted leave to amend to now allege causes of action under the Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) for failure to accommodate disability and failure to engage in the interactive process. Plaintiff’s 2AC was filed on 11/13/2018, with a Notice of Errata on the following day.

Moving Papers. DSH now moves to strike a number of allegations from the 2AC on the ground they improperly relate only to those causes of action which were recently disposed of via summary adjudication (especially the CWPA claim) and/or are otherwise false, irrelevant or improper.

Opposition. Plaintiff opposes, arguing that she may permissibly include all factual allegations which support her new causes of action.

Analysis

The motion to strike is granted as to all allegations identified in DSH’s notice of motion except for Paragraphs 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, 34, 37, 38, 40 and 41.

If not already done, DSH to file and serve its answer to the 2AC no later than 12/28/2018.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)