This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/17/2022 at 02:52:59 (UTC).

DANIEL SOPHY NHEM VS GARDA CL WEST, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/26/2021 DANIEL SOPHY NHEM filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against GARDA CL WEST, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is THERESA M. TRABER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9412

  • Filing Date:

    10/26/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

THERESA M. TRABER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

NHEM DANIEL SOPHY

Defendants

GARDA CL WEST INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

GARDA CL WEST LLC. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED CORPORATION

GARDAWORLD CASH SERVICES INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION

GARDAWORLD CASHLINK LLC. A DELAWARE LIMITED CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

ARIAS JANETH

LEONG ANGELA

Defendant Attorney

STONE SAMUEL J

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

5/4/2022: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER BY PLAINTIFF (DANIEL SOPHY NHEM), TO DEFE...)

5/4/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER BY PLAINTIFF (DANIEL SOPHY NHEM), TO DEFE...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT GARDA CL WEST, INC.S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF DANIEL SOPHY NHEMS COMPLAINT

4/21/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT GARDA CL WEST, INC.S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF DANIEL SOPHY NHEMS COMPLAINT

Declaration - DECLARATION OF SAMUEL J. STONE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT GARDA CL WEST, INC.S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF DANIEL SOPHY NHEMS COMPLAINT

4/21/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION OF SAMUEL J. STONE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT GARDA CL WEST, INC.S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF DANIEL SOPHY NHEMS COMPLAINT

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

4/27/2022: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

12/1/2021: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

Answer

12/29/2021: Answer

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

1/11/2022: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANGELA LEONG, ESQ. RE: DEMURRER PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 430.41(A)(1) AND 435.5, ET. SEQ., OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

1/11/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANGELA LEONG, ESQ. RE: DEMURRER PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 430.41(A)(1) AND 435.5, ET. SEQ., OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Case Management Statement

1/20/2022: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

1/21/2022: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING:)

2/2/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING:)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING:) OF 02/02/2022

2/2/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING:) OF 02/02/2022

Notice of Ruling

2/8/2022: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING CAPTION AND PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

3/3/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING CAPTION AND PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/2/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Management Conference

11/3/2021: Notice of Case Management Conference

Request for Dismissal

11/16/2021: Request for Dismissal

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/03/2023
  • Hearing07/03/2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2023
  • Hearing06/20/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2022
  • Hearing11/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 47; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 47, Theresa M. Traber, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (ID#658127047813) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Daniel Sophy Nhem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (HEARING ON DEMURRER BY PLAINTIFF (DANIEL SOPHY NHEM), TO DEFE...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2022
  • DocketReply (PLAINTIFF?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT?S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF?S COMPLAINT); Filed by Daniel Sophy Nhem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2022
  • DocketDeclaration (OF SAMUEL J. STONE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT GARDA CL WEST, INC.S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF DANIEL SOPHY NHEMS COMPLAINT); Filed by GARDA CL WEST, INC., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2022
  • DocketOpposition (TO DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT GARDA CL WEST, INC.S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF DANIEL SOPHY NHEMS COMPLAINT); Filed by GARDA CL WEST, INC., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
10 More Docket Entries
  • 12/29/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by GARDA CL WEST, INC., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Daniel Sophy Nhem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Daniel Sophy Nhem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Daniel Sophy Nhem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Daniel Sophy Nhem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Daniel Sophy Nhem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Daniel Sophy Nhem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Daniel Sophy Nhem (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******9412 Hearing Date: May 4, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: May 4, 2022 TRIAL DATE: NONE SET
CASE: Daniel Sophy Nhem v. Garda CL West, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: *******9412
DEMURRER TO ANSWER
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Daniel Sophy Nhem
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Garda CL West, Inc.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for employment discrimination based on disability.
Plaintiff demurs to the answer of Defendant Garda CL West, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant Garda CL West, Inc.’s answer is OVERRULED as to the ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and twenty-sixth affirmative defenses and otherwise SUSTAINED with 30-days’ leave to amend.
DISCUSSION:
Demurrer To Answer
Meet and Confer
The Declaration of Attorney Angela Leong reflects that the meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP 430.41 was satisfied.
Legal Standard
CCP 430.20 provides:
A party against whom an answer has been filed may object, by demurrer as provided in Section 430.30, to the answer upon any one or more of the following grounds:
(a) The answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
(b) The answer is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.
(Code Civ. Proc. 430.20.)
Regarding the standards for pleading an affirmative defense:
(1) In General. An affirmative defense must be pleaded in the same manner as if the facts were set forth in a complaint. In other words, the general requirement of stating the ultimate facts applies and, where particularity in pleading is necessary in a complaint, it is equally necessary in an affirmative defense involving the issue. (Bruck v. Tucker (1871) 42 C. 346, 352; Greiss v. State Inv. & Ins. Co. (1893) 98 C. 241, 244, 33 P. 195; Bradbury v. Higginson (1914) 167 C. 553, 557, 140 P. 254 [if matter set up is equitable cause of action, answer must contain all averments essential to statement of cause of action as such]; see 19B Am.Jur. P.P. Forms (2007 ed.), Pleading, 85 et seq.)
(2) Argumentative Denials. The affirmative form in which the defendant phrases his or her answering averments does not make them new matter. If they merely contradict essential allegations of the complaint, they are simply denials in affirmative form (“argumentative denials”). (Frisch v. Caler (1862) 21 C. 71, 74; Goddard v. Fulton (1863) 21 C. 430, 436; Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail (1938) 11 C.2d 501, 543, 81 P.2d 533; Jolley v. Clemens (1938) 28 C.A.2d 55, 65, 82 P.2d 51, supra, 1077.)
(6 Witkin Cal. Proc. Plead 1122.)
Affirmative defenses that are mere legal conclusions are insufficient:
The . . . answer alleged merely: “Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of waiver,” and “Plaintiff's causes of action, or some of them, are barred by the doctrine of laches because plaintiff unreasonably delayed bringing suit, causing defendants to reasonably rely on the status quo.”
These affirmative defenses consist of legal conclusions that could survive neither a demurrer nor a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Citations omitted.)
(Westly v. Board of Administration (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 1095, 1117.) Rather than being “proffered in the form of terse legal conclusions,” affirmative defenses must plead facts “averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint.” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.)
Analysis
Plaintiff demurs to Defendant’s second through seventeenth, twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fifth through twenty-seventh affirmative defenses on the ground that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (CCP 430.20(a).)
At the outset, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s demurrers to several of the defenses are actually demurrers for uncertainty. This contention is not well taken. A demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or defense can raise a lack of specificity, since the standard for pleading requires that allegations be pled with sufficient specificity and facts to put the other party on notice. The Court will review each of the demurrers as what they purport to be: demurrers for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
1. Second Affirmative Defense (Failure to Mitigate)
In this defense, Defendant alleges that each of Plaintiff’s causes of action are “barred. . . by Nhem’s failure to mitigate damages.” (Answer, pp. 2:26-3:1.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense on the ground that Defendant has pled no facts to support how Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable effort to mitigate his damages, since Plaintiff claimed multiple forms of damages.
In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff applied for no replacement job positions between 2018 and Plaintiff’s propounded discovery in this action. However, no such allegations appear on the face of any of the operative pleadings. Defendant identifies no other facts in support of this contention. Defendant has therefore failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the second affirmative defense is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
2. Third Affirmative Defense (Statute of Limitations)
In this defense, Defendant alleges that each of Plaintiff’s causes of action are “barred . . . by the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337, 338(a), 339, California Government Code sections 12960, 12965, and/or the applicable contractual statute of limitations.” (Answer p.3:6-8.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense on the ground that Defendant has not pled any facts to support that any of the claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
In pleading a statute of limitations, “it is not necessary to state the facts showing the defense, but it may be stated generally that the cause of action is barred by the provisions of Section (giving the number of the section and subdivision thereof, if it is so divided, relied upon) of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Code Civ. Proc. 458.) In other words, there are two ways to plead the statute of limitations. (Brown v. World Church (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 684, 691.) “[F]irst by alleging all of the facts showing that the action is barred . . . and indicating that the lateness of the commencement of the action is being urged as a defense.” (Ibid.) Second, “to specify the applicable section, and, if such section is divided into subdivisions, to specify the particular subdivision or subdivisions thereof.” (Ibid. [holding that the defendants had failed to properly plead the statute of limitations because “Section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure has two subdivisions and defendants failed to specify under which subdivision of the section they allegedly come”])
Here, Defendants have not alleged the specific statutory section applicable, along with any necessary subsections. Defendants have alleged multiple statutory sections and have not indicated to which of Plaintiff’s claims each of these statutes of limitations applies. Further, Defendant has not alleged facts which show that the action is barred by any statute of limitations. This does not qualify as sufficient pleading of a statute of limitations defense, absent allegations as to the facts supporting each of the listed statutes of limitations.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the third affirmative defense is SUSTAINED with leave to amend to specify either (1) a specific statutory section (and subsection, if necessary) on which the defense is based, along with the cause(s) of action each statute applies to, or (2) facts supporting the defense.
3. Fourth Affirmative Defense (Offset)
The fourth affirmative defense alleges that each cause of action in the Complaint is barred “because Nhem’s recovery, if any, must be offset by any benefits and/or other monies he received.” (Answer p.3:12-13.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense on the ground that the defense did not state which recovery would be offset and by which means.
In opposition, Defendant contends that the Complaint alleges the existence of a Worker’s Compensation case involving a work-related injury from Plaintiff’s employment, and also that actions in that case caused damages in this case. The Complaint does not explicitly allege that Plaintiff filed a Worker’s Compensation claim but does allege that he was issued a supplemental job displacement voucher. (Complaint 18.) Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that this defense does not identify the factual basis for the defense with sufficient particularity, as it does not identify any benefits to which it refers.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the fourth affirmative defense is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
4. Fifth through Eighth Affirmative Defenses (Laches, Estoppel, Waiver, Unclean Hands)
The fifth through eighth affirmative defenses raise the equitable defenses of laches, estoppel, waiver, and unclean hands, and allege that each claim and cause of action is barred by these defenses. (Answer pp.3:14-4:4.) Plaintiff demurs to each of these defenses on the ground that the defenses do not allege any facts that support these equitable defenses.
In opposition, Defendant contends that the general denial to all the material allegations in the complaint constitute facts sufficient to support each of these defenses. The Court disagrees. Even taking the negation of the allegations in the Complaint as true, these affirmative defenses are merely conclusory assertions without supporting facts. Defendant has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense for any of these affirmative defenses.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the fifth through eight affirmative defenses is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
5. Ninth Affirmative Defense (Frivolous Action)
This defense, improperly labeled as an affirmative defense, alleges that each cause of action and claim “is frivolous and that upon prevailing herein Garda shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. . .” (Answer p.4:8-9.) Plaintiff demurs on the ground that this defense does not identify any frivolous claims.
In opposition, Defendant contends that the defense states sufficient facts because Defendant’s general denial of all allegations in the Complaint operates as a pleading that all claims are non-actionable. Defendant, in other words, appears to contend that all of Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. As this is Plaintiff’s sole basis for demurrer to this defense, Defendant has stated facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the ninth affirmative defense is OVERRULED.
6. Tenth Affirmative Defense (Avoidable Consequences)
This defense alleges that each cause of action and claim is barred by the “avoidable consequences doctrine as Nhem failed to avail himself of the existing internal complaint procedures for resolution of his purported claims and unreasonably failed to timely take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities provided by Garda or otherwise to avoid harm.” (Answer p. 4:14-17.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense because Defendant did not allege any facts that show Plaintiff failed to take advantage of any internal complaint procedures provided by Defendant.
In opposition, Defendant contends that all ultimate facts required for this defense have been pled, in that it establishes that there was an existing internal complaint procedure and Plaintiff failed to utilize it. The Court is not persuaded. This is a conclusory assertion without supporting facts. Defendant must provide factual allegations to support its contention that Defendant failed to take advantage of internal complaint procedures.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the tenth affirmative defense is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
7. Eleventh Affirmative Defense (Failure to State a Claim for Punitive Damages)
This defense, mislabeled as an affirmative defense, alleges that Plaintiff is barred from pursuing claims for punitive damages on the grounds that “(i) the actions and omissions, if any, of Garda were in good faith; not maliciously, oppressively, or fraudulently; and not with reckless indifference to any of Nhem’s protected rights, (ii) Garda has made a good faith effort to comply, and has complied with, applicable law to prevent retaliation, harassment, and discrimination in the workplace; and (iii) there was no conduct by any director, officer, or managing agent of Garda that would give rise to an award of punitive damages against Garda, and (iv) there was no ratification by Garda of any alleged unlawful conduct.” (Answer p.4:21-26.) Plaintiff demurs on the ground that Defendant has failed to state facts supporting this defense.
In opposition, Defendant contends that it has provided sufficient fats in its allegation, and that evidentiary facts cannot be provided because this is a denial, rather than an allegation of additional facts. The Court concurs with Defendant that additional allegations are not required. This defense is an argumentative denial of allegations in the Complaint, and therefore does not require Defendant to allege additional facts in support.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the eleventh defense is OVERRULED.
8. Twelfth Affirmative Defense (Managerial Discretion/Legitimate Business Reasons)
This defense alleges that each cause of action is barred as “any and all conduct of which Nhem complains, which may be attributed to Garda was just and proper, taken for fair and honest reasons, in good faith and with good cause, was a legitimate exercise of managerial discretion, and was privileged under the law.” (Answer p.5:4-6.) Plaintiff demurs on the ground that this allegation is conclusory and states no facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that this allegation is conclusory. Defendant must provide additional supporting facts to maintain this defense.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the twelfth cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
9. Thirteenth Affirmative Defense (Worker’s Compensation Exclusive Remedy)
This defense alleges that each cause of action is barred “to the extent that Nhem seeks damages for injuries sustained by Nhem, as the exclusive remedy for Nhem’s injuries, if any, is the California Workers’ Compensation Act State of California, California Labor Code sections 3200, et seq.” (Answer p.5:10:12.) Plaintiff demurs on the ground that the claims are based on FEHA and wrongful termination, and therefore Defendant has failed to allege factual support that the claims are barred by worker’s compensation exclusive remedy.
In opposition, Defendant contends that the general denial encompasses Plaintiff’s allegations that the claims arise under FEHA and wrongful termination, and the basis for support arises in the Complaint in the allegation of Plaintiff’s industrial injury. (Complaint 15.) In the Court’s view, this is a legal defense rather than a factual defense, in that Defendant is alleging that the facts of this case are subject to a different legal theory than the one on which Plaintiff based his claims. This defense does not require additional facts in support.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the thirteenth affirmative defense is OVERRULED.
10. Fourteenth through Seventeenth Affirmative Defenses (Independent Action, Tortious Acts of Others, Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, Lack of Causation)
These defenses allege that the claims are barred because the conduct imputed to Garda was actually an independent tortious act of another not directed, ratified, or condoned by Garda, that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and that the alleged injuries were caused by others and not by Defendant. (Answer pp.5:17-6:13.) Plaintiff demurs to these defenses on the ground that Defendant has failed to allege sufficient facts showing what unlawful or tortious conduct any others committed, or what administrative remedies Plaintiff failed to exhaust.
These are conclusory assertions without supporting facts. In order for Defendant to maintain these claims, Defendant must produce facts that support these contentions.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the fourteenth through seventeenth affirmative defenses are SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
11. Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third Affirmative Defenses (Interactive Process and Reasonable Accommodations)
These defenses allege that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Defendant engaged in a timely good-faith interactive process with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was provided with reasonable accommodation. (Answer p.7:14-20.) Plaintiff demurs to these defenses on the ground that they are conclusory allegations without supporting facts. The Court concurs. Defendant must plead additional facts that support these contentions in order to maintain them.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the twenty-second and twenty-third affirmative defenses are SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
12. Twenty-Fifth Affirmative Defense (Legitimate Reason)
This defense alleges that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because “as there was no intent to violate public policy in the actions Garda took with respect to Nhem and that no illegitimate criterion was a ‘substantial motivating factor’ for any allegedly adverse employment action, and, in any event, even if Nhem could prove that an improper criterion was a ‘substantial motivating factor’ for Garda’s actions, Nhem’s remedies would be limited for the reason that Garda would have taken the same action for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons. Harris v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013).” (Answer p.8:4-9.) Plaintiff demurs on the ground that the defense does not state what other legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons would have caused the same result.
In opposition, Defendant contends that the Complaint states that Plaintiff had “onerous physical restrictions of a sedentary-only job” (Opposition p.9:27-28.) This is a mischaracterization of the allegations in the complaint, which were that Plaintiff’s Qualified Medical Evaluator report indicated “no lifting of more than 20 pounds above Plaintiff’s waist in repetitive fashion. Sedentary or clerical desk job would also be suitable if Plaintiff was not required to work above the shoulder level.” (Complaint 16.) Defendant also contends that, coupled with the general denial that any alleged employment action was premised on unlawful criteria, this allegation is a sufficient factual basis for the affirmative defense.
The Court is not persuaded. As presented in the answer, the allegation of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason is conclusory. If there are specific circumstances that give rise to a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, Defendant should so allege them in answer.
Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the twenty-fifth affirmative defense.
13. Twenty-Sixth Affirmative Defense (No Termination)
This defense alleges that Plaintiff “was never terminated from employment, actually, constructively, or otherwise.” (Answer p.8:13-14.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense on the ground that Defendant failed to provide factual support when the complaint states the form of termination on him.
Although this is labeled an “affirmative defense,” it is actually an argumentative denial. Plaintiff contends that he was wrongly terminated from his position. Defendant denies that Plaintiff was terminated. A denial contradicting an essential allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint does not require additional facts in support.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the twenty-sixth affirmative defense is OVERRULED.
14. Twenty-Seventh Affirmative Defense (Accord and Satisfaction)
Defendant alleges that the Complaint is barred “to the extent Nhem has settled and/or released his claims, and/or is subject to an accord and satisfaction.” (Answer p.8:18-19.) Plaintiff demurs to this defense on the ground that Defendant has alleged no facts to show that Plaintiff has settled and/or released his claims.
In opposition, Defendant contends that the general denial is sufficient as a factual statement that Plaintiff has no legal claims against Defendant, including by way of accord and satisfaction. Defendant contends that “it is entirely plausible that a release” in Plaintiff’s Worker’s Compensation claim bars some part of this action.
The Court is not persuaded. Defendant’s contention that this action is barred by accord and satisfaction is a conclusory allegation without supporting facts. For Defendant to maintain this defense, Defendant must plead facts in support of its contentions.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the twenty-seventh affirmative defense is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons above, Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendant Garda CL West, Inc.’s answer is OVERRULED as to the ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and twenty-sixth affirmative defenses and otherwise SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
Defendant is granted 30 days’ leave to amend.
Moving party to give notice, unless waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 4, 2022
Theresa M. Traber
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where GARDAWORLD CASHLINK LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where GARDAWORLD CASH SERVICES INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where GARDA CL WEST INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ARIAS JANETH