Case Number: VC066974 Hearing Date: June 05, 2018 Dept: SEC

NAVARRO v. INJOY LIFE RESOURCES, INC.

CASE NO.: VC066974

HEARING: 06/05/18

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant INJOY LIFE RESOURCES, INC.’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend. CCP § 430.10(e).

II. Defendant INJOY LIFE RESOURCES, INC.’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend. CCP §436.

Moving Party to Give Notice.

This employment action was filed by Plaintiff TONEE J. NAVARRO on March 2, 2018. As alleged, the relevant facts are as follows: Plaintiff was hired by Defendant INJOY LIFE RESOURCES, INC. (“InJoy”) on or about November 3, 2014. (Complaint ¶11.) Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants subjected…Plaintiff to sexual harassment. [¶] During her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment and hostile work environment.” (Complaint ¶¶39-40; See Complaint ¶¶16-38.) Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on March 2, 2018, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Sexual Harassment in Violation of Gov’t Code §§12940 et seq.; (2) Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Gov’t Code §§129040 set seq.; (3) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment of Retaliation in Violation of Govt. Code §12940(k); (4) Negligent Hiring, Training, Retention, and Supervision; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (6) Declaratory Judgment.

Defendant INJOY LIFE RESOURCES, INC. generally demurs to Plaintiff’s fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action pursuant to CCP §430.10(e), and specially demurs to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action pursuant to CCP §430.10(f).

Fourth Cause of Action – Negligent Hiring, Training, Retention, and Supervision

Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is uncertain. Plaintiff improperly combined multiple causes of action into one (i.e. Negligent Hiring and/or Retention; Negligent Supervision; and Negligent Failure to Warn, Train, or Educate.) (See CRC Rule 2.112; See also Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn.2.)

Here, Defendant seemingly challenges Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligent hiring. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained with 30 days leave to amend so that Plaintiff can allege the causes of action separately, or omit causes of action.

Fifth Cause of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires the following elements: (1) outrageous conduct by defendant; (2) intentional or reckless conduct causing emotional distress; (3) severe emotional distress; and (4) causation. (Huntington Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1259.) “Conduct, to be ‘outrageous’ must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized society.” (Id.) There is also an additional requirement—there “must be conduct directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware.” (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903.) The only exception is where the defendant is aware but acts with reckless disregard of the plaintiff and the probability that his or her conduct would cause severe emotional distress to the plaintiff. (Id. at 905.)

Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon vicarious liability. The acts alleged as attributed to Defendant InJoy do not rise to the level of intent or outrageousness necessary to maintain this cause of action. The demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.

Sixth Cause of Action – Declaratory Judgment

“Any person interested under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another, may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the contract.” (CCP §1060.) To state a cause of action for declaratory relief under CCP §1060, a pleading must allege facts from which the court may determine that an actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties exists. (Alturas v. Gloster (1940) 16 Cal.2d 46, 48.) “An actual controversy ‘is one which admits of definitive and conclusive relief by judgment. The judgment must decree, not suggest, what the parties may or may not do.’” (In re Claudia E. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 627, 638.).) If no facts are alleged which would render necessary or proper a declaration with respect to the future conduct of the parties, resolution by demurrer is appropriate. (Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 357, 376 [there is no basis for declaratory relief where only past wrongs are involved]; Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634, 648 [demurrer properly sustained where no allegations that declaratory relief would “have any practical consequences.”]; Ball v. FleetBoston Financial Corp. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 794, 800 [demurrer is properly sustained as to claims for declaratory relief “wholly derivative” of an unsupportive statutory claim].)

Plaintiff fails to allege an actual, ongoing controversy pertaining to the legal rights and duties of the parties. Notwithstanding, in the interests of justice, the demurrer to the sixth cause of action is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.

Motion to Strike

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435…(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (CCP §436(a).) Defendant moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint which reference and/or identify Defendant’s developmentally disabled clients by name, in violation of HIPAA. Defendant argues that, “[t]he name of Defendant’s client is not only unnecessary, but is a gross violation of the client’s privacy rights.” (Motion 3:8-9.) The Court agrees. Defendant’s motion to strike is granted with 30 days leave to amend so that Plaintiff can omit the names of Defendant’s patients from the operative pleading.