18-CIV-03163 AMANDA GARCIA VS. PURCELL-MURRAY COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

AMANDA GARCIA PURCELL-MURRAY COMPANY, INC.
SPENCER C. YOUNG

HEARING ON DEMURRER TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is OVERRULED in its entirety.

Defendants contend Plaintiff’s first cause of action for harassment against Defendant Chatfield should be dismissed because Chatfield was not named in the caption of Plaintiff’s administrative complaint. Defendants rely on Valdez v. City of Los Angeles, 231 Cal. App. 3d 1043, 1060–63, 282 Cal. Rptr. 726 (Ct. App. 1991). That case is distinguishable because the defendant was not named in the caption or the body of the administrative complaint, as noted in Martin v. Fisher, 11 Cal. App. 4th 118, 122, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 922, 924 (1992), and Saavedra v. Orange Cty. Consol. Transportation etc. Agency, 11 Cal.App.4th 824, 827–28, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 282, 284–85 (1992). In the present case, Defendant Chatfield is identified numerous times in the body of Plaintiff’s administrative complaint as a perpetrator of harassment and discrimination. As noted in Martin, 11 Cal.App.4th, at 122, none of the federal cases cited in Valdez “takes the hard line . . . that only a party named in the caption of the administrative complaint may be sued, regardless of any other circumstances.”

Defendants contend Plaintiff’s eighteenth and nineteenth causes of action should be dismissed because Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of a contractual relationship. Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, however, the complaint alleges that “Plaintiff was employed by Purcell Murray under an agreement that was partially written, partially oral and partially implied.” Plaintiff may pursue a claim for unpaid wages “by filing an ordinary civil action for breach of contract and/or for the wages prescribed by statute.” Post v. Palo/Haklar & Assocs., 23 Cal. 4th 942, 946, 4 P.3d 928 (2000). Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts alleging the existence of a contract to support her claims for breach.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.