2013-00145003-CU-OE

Ruby Cornejo vs. California Department of Social Services

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer (Pierce, Erickson, Peterson, Martinez and

Filed By: Irwin, Joshua C.

Defendants Dorette Pierce, Allyssa Erickson, Lon Peterson, Paul Martinez, and Kathi
Mowers-Moore’s (Individual Defendants) Demurrer to the Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint is SUSTAINED, with and without leave to amend.

st
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint sets forth three causes of action: the 1 for
Retaliation in Violation of the California Whistle-Blower Protection Act, the 2nd for
Discrimination, Retaliation and Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process
rd
in violation of FEHA and the 3 for Retaliation in Violation of the California Labor Code
Section 1102.5. Only the first cause of action is alleged against the Individual
Defendants .

st
Demurrer to the 1 for Retaliation in Violation of the California Whistle-Blower
Protection Act is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Plaintiff’s FAC contains insufficient facts to show that plaintiff made protected
disclosure, and fails to show the causal connection between any of her specific
complaints to the violation of a statute. No nexus is shown between any of the alleged
protected activities by plaintiff since 1999 and any alleged adverse action.

The demurrer to this cause of action is also sustained on the grounds of uncertainty.

Demurrer to the 2nd for Discrimination, Retaliation and Failure to Engage in the
Interactive Process is in violation of FEHA is not alleged against the Individual
Defendants.

rd
Demurrer to the 3 for Retaliation in Violation of the California Labor Code Section
1102.5 is not alleged against the Individual Defendants.

Plaintiff shall file and serve her Second Amended Complaint not later than Monday,
June 2, 2014. The responsive pleading shall be due filed and served 10 days later (15
days if service is by mail).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.

2013-00145003-CU-OE

Ruby Cornejo vs. California Department of Social Services

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer (Department of Social Services)

Filed By: Irwin, Joshua C.
Defendant Department of Social Services (“DSS”) Demurrer to the Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED, with and without leave to amend.

st
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint sets forth three causes of action: the 1 for
Retaliation in Violation of the California Whistle-Blower Protection Act, the 2nd for
Discrimination, Retaliation and Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in violation
of FEHA and the 3rd for Retaliation in Violation of the California Labor Code Section
1102.5. All are alleged against DSS.

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities exceeds the 15 page limit provided in
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113. Despite this failure to comply with the
California Rules of Court, the Court has read and considered the entire 23 page
document. The plaintiff’s counsel is admonished to abide by the page limitations in
future filings, absent ex parte order permitting a longer memorandum.

st
Demurrer to the 1 for Retaliation in Violation of the California Whistle-Blower
Protection Act is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff has
failed to tie any of her specific complaints to the violation of a statute. No nexus is
shown between any of the alleged protected activities by plaintiff since 1999 and any
alleged adverse action.

The demurrer to this cause of action is also sustained on the grounds of uncertainty.

Demurrer to the 2nd for Discrimination, Retaliation and Failure to Engage in the
Interactive Process is in violation of FEHA is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for disability
discrimination, as she has not alleged that she was subject to any adverse
employment action because of her disability.

As to the allegations of retaliation, again, no causal link is shown between any of the
alleged FEHA protected activities by plaintiff and any alleged adverse action.

rd
Demurrer to the 3 for Retaliation in Violation of the California Labor Code Section
1102.5 is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

Plaintiff incorporates the prior factual allegations (FAC para. 27), which includes a
claim that “Plaintiff has, and will continue to, suffer injury and damages as a result of
Defendants’ conduct, including, but not limited to, emotional distress, embarrassment,
humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and damage to her health and to her personal
and professional reputation.” (FAC, para. 25; see also para. 29.)

The California Government Claims Act governs all actions against public entities and
public employees. (Clark v. Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th
150, 182; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1263,
1267.) The Tort Claims Act requires that a civil complaint for money or damages first
be presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity. Each theory of recovery
against the public entity must be reflected in a timely claim.
Plaintiff has not and cannot allege compliance with the Government Claims Act, which
is a prerequisite to suit against a public entity and its employees. Gov. Code, sec.
905.2. The original complaint admits that no claim was timely filed, therefore leave to
amend is denied. (Compl., para. 11)

Plaintiff’s exhaustion of administrative remedies under the WPA and FEHA does not
meet the Tort Claims Act’s claim exhaustion requirement that attaches a Labor Code
section 1102.5 claim.

Plaintiff shall file and serve her Second Amended Complaint not later than Monday,
June 2, 2014. The responsive pleading shall be due filed and served 10 days later (15
days if service is by mail).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.