This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/16/2022 at 16:55:22 (UTC).

AMANDA TATARYN VS HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/02/2021 AMANDA TATARYN filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT, LLC , A LIMITED LIABILITY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is BARBARA A. MEIERS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2639

  • Filing Date:

    04/02/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

BARBARA A. MEIERS

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

TATARYN AMANDA

Defendants and Cross Defendants

BLAUBUKS AGRIS BLAUBUKS

HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT INC. A CORPORATION

SHERER MICHAEL

HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM ENTITY

MERAKI MANAGEMENT INC. A CORPORATION

HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT LLC. A LIMITED LIABILITY

MERAKI MANAGEMENT LLC. A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

HOLLYWOOD SELECT TALENT A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM ENTITY

BARROSO CESAR

MERAKI MODELING AGENCY A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN

MERAKI MANAGEMENT INC.

HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT

MERAKI MANAGEMENT LLC

HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT INC.

BLAUBUKS AGRIS

HOLLYWOOD SELECT TALENT

MERAKI MODELING AGENCY

HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT LLC

ABCB MANAGEMENT INC.

Cross Plaintiff and Defendant

SHERER MICHAEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MUSE ROGER

MUSE ROGER Y.

MUSE ROGER Y

Defendant Attorneys

STLAWRENCE ISAAC LEE

MCNUTT JEREMY

 

Court Documents

Amended Complaint - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/8/2021: Amended Complaint - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Proof of Personal Service

10/27/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Cross-Complaint

11/8/2021: Cross-Complaint

Answer

11/8/2021: Answer

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

9/30/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

8/25/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Request for Dismissal

7/23/2021: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

7/23/2021: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

7/23/2021: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

7/23/2021: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

7/23/2021: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

7/23/2021: Request for Dismissal

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

7/28/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/13/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

8/17/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

8/17/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Case Management Statement

8/18/2021: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

8/20/2021: Case Management Statement

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/01/2022
  • Hearing08/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2022
  • Hearing07/22/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Michael Scherer Erroneously Sued As Michael Sherer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2021
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by Michael Scherer Erroneously Sued As Michael Sherer (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Amanda Tataryn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Amanda Tataryn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/25/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 05/06/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Amanda Tataryn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • Docketat 11:30 AM in Department 12, Barbara A. Meiers, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer) of 04/20/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2021
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Amanda Tataryn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Amanda Tataryn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Amanda Tataryn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Amanda Tataryn (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21STCV12639 Hearing Date: September 30, 2021 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Demurrer

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving Party: Defendant Michael Scherer

\r\n\r\n

Resp. Party: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s\r\ndemurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This\r\ndemurrer is unopposed, yet plaintiff has not indicated that she is planning on\r\nfiling an amended complaint. The Court\r\nfinds such silence to be troubling. If\r\nplaintiff believed that the demurrer should be overruled, she should have filed\r\nan opposition. If plaintiff agreed that\r\nthe complaint needed to be amended, she should have agreed when\r\nmeeting-and-conferring with defendants to amend the complaint or file a first\r\namended complaint. Had she done so, the\r\ncourt and its staff would not have had to spend the time analyzing a demurrer\r\nto a complaint that even plaintiff agrees must be amended.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND:

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s case arises out of various\r\nwage and hour violations allegedly committed by the Defendants. (See generally\r\nComplaint.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 02, 2021, Plaintiff Amanda\r\nTataryn (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against, inter alia,\r\nDefendant Michael Scherer asserting the following causes of action: (1) violation\r\nof Labor Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1182.12, 1197.1 (unpaid minimum wages); (2)\r\nviolation of LAMC § 187, et seq. (unpaid Los Angeles minimum wages); (3)\r\nviolation of Labor Code §§ 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime); (4) violation of\r\nLabor Code § 2802 (unreimbursed business expenses); (5) violation of Labor Code\r\n§§ 226.7 and 512(a) (unpaid meal period premiums); (6) violation of Labor Code\r\n§ 226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums); (7) violation of Labor Code § 204; (8)\r\nviolation of Labor Code §§ 201-203 (final wages not timely paid); (9) violation\r\nof Labor Code § 226(a) (non-compliant wage statements); and (10) violation of\r\nBusiness and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. (unfair competition).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff voluntarily\r\ndismissed the following defendants: (1) Hollywood Model Management, LLC; (2)\r\nHollywood Model Management, Inc.; (3) Hollywood Model Management; (4) Hollywood\r\nSelect Talent; (5) Meraki Management, LLC; and (6) Meraki Modeling Agency.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 28, 2021, Defendant Michael\r\nScherer (“Defendant”) filed the instant demurrer to the complaint in its\r\nentirety.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nDemurrer

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency\r\nof other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or\r\ncontent of the opposing party’s pleading. It is not the function of the\r\ndemurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the\r\nruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be\r\ntrue, however improbable they may be. (Code Civ. Proc., §§422.10,\r\n589.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear\r\non the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading\r\nthat are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d\r\n311.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking\r\ndemurrers”). A demurrer is brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10\r\n(grounds), section 430.30 (as to any matter on its face or from which judicial\r\nnotice may be taken), and section 430.50(a) (can be taken to the entire\r\ncomplaint or any cause of action within).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure\r\nsection 430.10(e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of\r\naction asserted. A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the\r\ncomplaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Code\r\nCiv. Proc., § 430.10(f).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. \r\nDiscussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant demurs to the first through tenth causes of action\r\nraised in Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiff’s alter ego\r\ntheory of liability is vague and uncertain; (2) insufficient facts have been alleged\r\nto establish any cause of action against him; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to\r\nexhaust administrative remedies before filing the instant action.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

1. \r\nMeet and Confer

\r\n\r\n

As a preliminary matter, Defendant has failed to sufficiently meet and\r\nconfer as required law because no declaration has been submitted to detail\r\nDefendant’s attempt to meet and confer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).\r\nNonetheless, the Court will consider the merits of Defendant’s demurrer because\r\nthis insufficiency is not grounds to overrule a demurrer. (Id., at subd.\r\n(a)(4).) However, in the future the Court expects Defendant to adhere to these\r\nimportant procedural requirements.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

2. Alter Ego

\r\n\r\n

Defendant argues that the complaint is rendered vague because the\r\ncomplaint alleges multiple alter egos to the same corporations. (Demurrer at\r\npg. 2.) Notably, Defendant fails to cite to any legal authority to support this\r\nposition. Even if this were true, this argument has been rendered moot because\r\nPlaintiff voluntarily dismissed the corporate defendants from this action on\r\nJuly 23, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s demurrer on this basis.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

3. \r\nFailure to State Sufficient Facts

\r\n\r\n

Defendant asserts that he sold Hollywood Model Management on August 14,\r\n2018, and that the alleged misconduct occurred after this sale. (Demurrer at\r\npg. 1-2.) Thus, Defendant reasons that the complaint has not been sufficiently\r\npleaded. Also, Defendant argues that the complaint does not demonstrate that he\r\nwas Plaintiff’s employer during the pertinent times as framed by the complaint.\r\n(Demurrer at pg. 2.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

These arguments are unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the allegations\r\nraised in the complaint are considered true unless they are defective on their\r\nface or through judicially noticeable matters. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at 318.) But\r\nDefendant has not requested the Court to take judicial notice of the sale of\r\nhis business. Because the sale of the business is not apparent on the face of\r\nthe complaint, this argument should be rejected. Second, the complaint alleges\r\nthat Defendant and others were her employers during the relevant time periods.\r\n(Complaint, ¶ 26.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s demurrer on this basis.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

4. \r\nProcedural Requirement

\r\n\r\n

Lastly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege that she\r\nexhausted her administrative remedies as set forth in Labor Code § 2699.3\r\n(PAGA). (Demurrer at pg. 3.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PAGA allows an aggrieved employee\r\nto bring suit on behalf of himself or herself and other current or\r\nformer employees for violations of California Labor Code\r\nprovisions. (Labor Code § 2699(a).) In order to bring such a\r\nPAGA action, an aggrieved employee must first give written\r\nnotice through certified mail to the Labor and Workplace Development\r\nAgency (“LWDA”) and the employer of the alleged violations. (Labor\r\nCode § 2699.3(a)(1).) That notice must include the “facts and\r\ntheories to support the alleged violation.” (Id.) If the LWDA\r\ngives notice that it does not intend to investigate, or fails to respond within\r\n33 days, then the employee may bring a civil action under PAGA.” (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant is correct that the complaint\r\ndoes not allege that Plaintiff complied with the requirements set forth in\r\nLabor Code § 2699.3. Before bringing this suit, Plaintiff was required to file\r\nwritten notice of this suit to LWDA and her employers. (Id.) Thus, based\r\non the current allegations, it is unclear whether the Court has jurisdiction\r\nover Plaintiff’s complaint.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer with\r\nleave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HOLLYWOOD MODEL MANAGEMENT LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MUSE ROGER

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MUSE ROGER Y.