Tentative Ruling: Latonya Bankett vs. California Franchise Tax Board

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                                 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

   34-2018-00241074-CU-OE-GDS: Latonya Bankett vs. California Franchise Tax Board
                   04/17/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar
must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral
Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise
opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail
message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific
matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the
opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom
link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes
the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by
video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other
parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required,
the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The
Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom
Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom
Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at
their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.
Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore
available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-
reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by
utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at
https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by
each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the
Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the
clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request
for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10
days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once
approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be
provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant California Franchise Tax Board’s (“FTB”) demurrer to the 7th Cause of
Action alleged in the First Amended Complaint is UNOPPOSED and is SUSTAINED as
follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out plaintiff’s employment with defendant FTB on a permanent but
intermittent basis. The First Amended Complaint purports to asserts a variety of
                                                 Page 1 of 2
                         SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                            COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

  34-2018-00241074-CU-OE-GDS: Latonya Bankett vs. California Franchise Tax Board
                  04/17/2024 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

discrimination and related claims (e.g., failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the
interactive process, etc.) under the FEHA, along with an additional claim under the
Labor Code for “Under Paid Wages.” It is this latter Labor Code cause of action which
is the subject of this demurrer. Trial is currently set to commence on 5/13/2024.

Moving Papers. Defendant FTB now demurs to the 7th Cause of Action “Under Paid
Wages” pursuant to Labor Code §558 for “Under Paid Wages” on three separate
grounds: (1) Plaintiff fails to allege timely compliance with the Government Claims Act;
(2) there is no private right of action under Labor Code §558; and (3) the cause of action
cannot be brought against a public employer.

Opposition. Plaintiff Bankett has filed a “Non-Opposition” to this demurrer to the 7th
Cause of Action. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on
the merits of the motion. (See, D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60
Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Discussion

As plaintiff has explicitly indicated she does not oppose this demurrer, the Court will
SUSTAIN defendant FTB’s demurrer to the 7th Cause of Action only and leave to
amend (which was not requested) is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)




                                         Page 2 of 2