Case Number: BC527985    Hearing Date: August 05, 2014    Dept: SEC

MANUEL v. HEART TO HEART CARE, INC.
CASE NO.: BC527985
HEARING: 08/05/14

#1
TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant HEART TO HEART CARE, INC.’s demurrer is OVERRULED. C.C.P. § 430.10(a), (e), (f).

Defendant GENTLE HANDS, INC’s motion to strike is DENIED. C.C.P. §§ 435, 436.

Defendants have 20 days within which to file a responsive pleading.

As alleged, on February 18, 2013, plaintiff VANESSA ANNALIZA M. MANUEL began working as a part-time registered nurse/case manager for defendant Heart to Heart. In March 2013, plaintiff was offered a second part-time position at defendant Gentle Hands.

During the scope of her employment, plaintiff began questioning whether co-employee Nelly Wilson was in fact a licensed social worker, as she claimed to be. On May 3, 2013, plaintiff was offered a full-time position at Gentle Hands which required her to eliminate her hours at Heart to Heart. Prior to leaving there, she “felt she had a duty to …tell her employers to check the validity of Ms. Wilson’s social worker license.” Comp., ¶19. It appears plaintiff did so, but that fact is not alleged. On May 7, 2013, plaintiff received a call from the Director of Nursing who informed her that the full-time position at Gentle Hands had been eliminated due to budgetary concerns. Plaintiff’s request to return to her part-time position was denied.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) wrongful termination and (2) IIED, to which defendant Heart demurs. Defendant Gentle seeks to have stricken several allegations from the complaint (which are identified in the Notice of Motion).

Demurrer
Defendant argues that plaintiff was only an “at-will, short-time part-time employee” and that she has “exaggerated a complaint…with frivolous and flamboyant claims.” There is no legal explanation as to why plaintiff’s causes of action are improper. The facts alleged support a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, as it may reasonably be inferred that plaintiff is claiming that she was terminated as retaliation for her questioning the license of a co-worker and as a result of defendants’ intentional conduct, she suffered emotional distress. Defendant did not meet its burden of establishing that the allegations are insufficient. The demurrer on the grounds of failure to state sufficient facts and uncertainty is overruled.

Defendant also claims that plaintiff quit her employment with Heart to Heart, so the claim against it fails. Plaintiff alleges that the two entities acted in concert, that both were her employers and that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment. Defendant did not address that allegation, and thus failed to establish that it is improperly named. The demurrer is overruled on that ground as well.

Motion to strike
Defendant Gentle Hands seeks to have stricken allegations that plaintiff was an exemplary employee, allegations pertaining to why she questioned Wilson’s license and allegations regarding the requirement of such license. A plaintiff may allege background facts, and other facts to establish the context of her substantive claims. Defendant has not shown that those allegations are “improper, false or irrelevant,” subject to being stricken under the statute. The motion is denied.

Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress is “fabricated.” The truth of the matters alleged must be assumed on demurrer or motion to strike. Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584. The fact that plaintiff’s employment was for only a two-month duration does not defeat her claims. She necessarily alleged that the acts complained of were committed by defendants’ agents or employees, as the named defendants are corporate entities.

The motion to strike is denied.