Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/30/2020 at 10:39:05 (UTC).

COURTNEY FURLONG VS PEJMAN MOKHTAR DDS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/20/2020 COURTNEY FURLONG filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against PEJMAN MOKHTAR DDS, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1705

  • Filing Date:

    02/20/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FURLONG COURTNEY

Defendants

MOKHTAR PEJMAN

PEJMAN MOKHTAR DDS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KARIM SHAFIEL A.

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order JOINT STIPULATION CONTINUING DEFENDANTS DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING JOINT STIPULATION CONTIN

7/20/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order JOINT STIPULATION CONTINUING DEFENDANTS DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING JOINT STIPULATION CONTIN

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/25/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

3/25/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/20/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

2/20/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

2/20/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

2/20/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

2/20/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/23/2023
  • Hearing02/23/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • Hearing08/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2020
  • DocketStipulation and Order JOINT STIPULATION CONTINUING DEFENDANTS DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING JOINT STIPULATION CONTINUING DEFENDANTS DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS 45-DAY EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO P; Filed by: PEJMAN MOKHTAR DDS, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); PEJMAN MOKHTAR (Defendant); As to: COURTNEY FURLONG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Stipulation and Order JOINT STIPULATION CONTINUING DEFENDANTS DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING JOINT STIPULATION CONTINUING DEFENDANTS DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS 45-DAY EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO P: Status changed from Filed to Signed and Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: COURTNEY FURLONG (Plaintiff); As to: PEJMAN MOKHTAR (Defendant); Service Date: 02/28/2020; Service Cost: 101.95; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: COURTNEY FURLONG (Plaintiff); As to: PEJMAN MOKHTAR DDS, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 03/04/2020; Service Cost: 76.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/19/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/23/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: COURTNEY FURLONG (Plaintiff); As to: PEJMAN MOKHTAR DDS, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); PEJMAN MOKHTAR (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: COURTNEY FURLONG (Plaintiff); As to: PEJMAN MOKHTAR DDS, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); PEJMAN MOKHTAR (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: COURTNEY FURLONG (Plaintiff); As to: PEJMAN MOKHTAR DDS, INC., a California corporation (Defendant); PEJMAN MOKHTAR (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC01705    Hearing Date: January 19, 2021    Dept: 26

Furlong v. Mokhtar DDS, Inc., et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Courtney Furlong’s Demurrer to the Answer of Defendants Pejman Mokhtar DDS, Inc. and Pejman Mokhtar is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

On February 20, 2020, Plaintiff Courtney Furlong (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violation of wage and hour laws against Defendants Pejman Mokhtar DDS, Inc. and Pejman Mokhtar (“Defendants”). Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint on September 3, 2020. Plaintiff filed the instant Demurrer to the Answer on September 15, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Meet and Confer Requirement

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

The Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a satisfactory meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Karim Decl., ¶¶12-13 and Exh. B.)

Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiff demurs to each affirmative defense in the Answer for failure to allege sufficient facts and uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).) As an initial matter, demurrers for uncertainty are not permitted in courts of limited jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) Therefore, the Court will not rule on the demurrers for uncertainty.

Regarding the allegations necessary to state an affirmative defense in an answer, the same pleading of “ultimate facts” rather than evidentiary matter or legal conclusions is required as when pleading the complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) The answer must aver facts as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and which are alleged in the complaint. (Ibid.)  The various affirmative defenses must be separately stated and must refer to the causes of action to which they relate “in a manner by which they may be intelligently distinguished.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (g).)

The determination of the sufficiency of the answer requires an examination of the complaint because its adequacy is with reference to the complaint it purports to answer. (Chadbourn, Grossman, Van Alstyne, Cal. Pleading, § 1334, pp. 490, 491; Miller & Lux, Inc., v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp., 120 Cal.App. 589, 600, 8 P.2d 560.) This requirement, however, does not mean that the allegations of the complaint, if denied, are to be taken as true, the rule being that the demurrer to the answer admits all issuable facts pleaded therein and eliminates all allegations of the complaint denied by the answer. (Miller & Lux, Inc., v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp., supra, 120 Cal.App. p. 600, 8 P.2d 560; Sheward v. Citizens' Water Co., 90 Cal. 635, 639, 27 P. 439; Chadbourn, Grossman, Van Alstyne, Cal. Pleading, § 1334, p. 489.)

(South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733.) 

The Complaint asserts nine causes of action for violation of wage and labor law, based on detailed allegations of Plaintiff’s working conditions at Defendants’ business. Specifically, that despite being employed by Defendants as an at-will, non-exempt hourly employee, Plaintiff was not always paid overtime, allowed to take uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks, allowed to take uninterrupted 10-minute rest breaks, accurate wage statements, as required by the law. (Compl., ¶¶12-18.)

Plaintiff demurs to the affirmative defenses in Defendants’ Answer on the ground that they fail to allege sufficient facts and do not specify to which cause or causes of action they pertain. As to the second part, Plaintiff is correct. None of the affirmative defenses indicate to which cause of action they respond, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.30, subdivision (g). This alone is reason to sustain the Demurrers. Furthermore, none of the affirmative defenses include factual allegations such as those set forth in the Complaint. Instead, they generically allege the nature of the affirmative defense without supporting details. For example, the first affirmative defense alleges that “the Complaint . . . fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted against this answering Defendant.” (Answer, ¶1.) As all the affirmative defenses are inadequately stated in this manner, the Demurrer is also sustained on this basis.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Courtney Furlong’s Demurrer to the Answer of Defendants Pejman Mokhtar DDS, Inc. and Pejman Mokhtar is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.

ANALYSIS:

On February 20, 2020, Plaintiff Courtney Furlong (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violation of wage and hour laws against Defendants Pejman Mokhtar DDS, Inc. and Pejman Mokhtar (“Defendants”). Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint on September 3, 2020. Plaintiff filed the instant Demurrer to the Answer on September 15, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Meet and Confer Requirement

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

The Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a satisfactory meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Karim Decl., ¶¶12-13 and Exh. B.)

Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiff demurs to each affirmative defense in the Answer for failure to allege sufficient facts and uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).) As an initial matter, demurrers for uncertainty are not permitted in courts of limited jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) Therefore, the Court will not rule on the demurrers for uncertainty.

Regarding the allegations necessary to state an affirmative defense in an answer, the same pleading of “ultimate facts” rather than evidentiary matter or legal conclusions is required as when pleading the complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) The answer must aver facts as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and which are alleged in the complaint. (Ibid.) The various affirmative defenses must be separately stated and must refer to the causes of action to which they relate “in a manner by which they may be intelligently distinguished.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (g).)

The determination of the sufficiency of the answer requires an examination of the complaint because its adequacy is with reference to the complaint it purports to answer. (Chadbourn, Grossman, Van Alstyne, Cal. Pleading, § 1334, pp. 490, 491; Miller & Lux, Inc., v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp., 120 Cal.App. 589, 600, 8 P.2d 560.) This requirement, however, does not mean that the allegations of the complaint, if denied, are to be taken as true, the rule being that the demurrer to the answer admits all issuable facts pleaded therein and eliminates all allegations of the complaint denied by the answer. (Miller & Lux, Inc., v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp., supra, 120 Cal.App. p. 600, 8 P.2d 560; Sheward v. Citizens' Water Co., 90 Cal. 635, 639, 27 P. 439; Chadbourn, Grossman, Van Alstyne, Cal. Pleading, § 1334, p. 489.)

(South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733.)

The Complaint asserts nine causes of action for violation of wage and labor law, based on detailed allegations of Plaintiff’s working conditions at Defendants’ business. Specifically, that despite being employed by Defendants as an at-will, non-exempt hourly employee, Plaintiff was not always paid overtime, allowed to take uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks, allowed to take uninterrupted 10-minute rest breaks, accurate wage statements, as required by the law. (Compl., ¶¶12-18.)

Plaintiff demurs to the affirmative defenses in Defendants’ Answer on the ground that they fail to allege sufficient facts and do not specify to which cause or causes of action they pertain. As to the second part, Plaintiff is correct. None of the affirmative defenses indicate to which cause of action they respond, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.30, subdivision (g). This alone is reason to sustain the Demurrers. Furthermore, none of the affirmative defenses include factual allegations such as those set forth in the Complaint. Instead, they generically allege the nature of the affirmative defense without supporting details. For example, the first affirmative defense alleges that “the Complaint . . . fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted against this answering Defendant.” (Answer, ¶1.) As all the affirmative defenses are inadequately stated in this manner, the Demurrer is also sustained on this basis.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Courtney Furlong’s Demurrer to the Answer of Defendants Pejman Mokhtar DDS, Inc. and Pejman Mokhtar is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KARIM ESQ. SHAFIEL AHMED