Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
superior Court ofCalifornia,
County ofPlacer
06/24/2020
J.EDWARD BROOKS, StateBar No. 247767 Gigs
Reset arears Capa) Jets
ELIEZER COHEN, StateBar No. 302248
GAVRILOV & BROOKS
NO
2315 Capitol Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95816
WwW
Telephone: (916) 504-0529
Facsimile: (916) 727-6877
BR
Email: ebrooks@gavrilovlaw.com
WN
Attorneys forPlaintiff
DB
DAVID MOELLER
YN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Oa
COUNTY OF PLACER
So
10 DAVID MOELLER, Case No. S-CV-0042445
11
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF ELIEZER COHEN IN
12 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
V. SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT
13 MARIANNE J. AKERLAND PURSUANT TO
14 MJ AKERLAND, R.N., A CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
PROFESSIONAL NURSING 128.7
15 CORPORATION doing businessas K12 .
HEALTH, a CaliforniaCorporation; neaing Date: aD 17,2020
16 MARIANNE J.AKERLAND, an Tine: 2-30 am.
17 individual;andDOES 1— 10, inclusive,
Complaint Filed: February 4,2019
18 Defendants. TrialDate: September 21, 2020
19
20
21 DECLARATION OF ELIEZER COHEN
22 I,EliezerCohen, declareas follows:
23 1. Iam anattorney atlaw licensedtopracticebeforeallcourtsof theStateof Californiaand
24 am an attorneyinthelaw firm ofGavrilov & Brooks,attorneysof recordforPlaintiffDA VID MOELLER
25 (“Plaintiff”),
in the above-entitledaction.I have personalknowledge of thestatements below, and if
26 calledasa witnesstotestifyonsuch mattersI couldcompetently do so.I make thisDeclarationinsupport
27 of Plaintiff's
Motion forSanctions againstDefendant Marianne J.Akerland and her counsel.
28
2. Attached heretoasExhibit A isa trueand correct
copy of Defendant Marianne Akerland’s
Motion and Memorandum of Points
& Authorities
in supportofDemurrer toPlaintiff's
Second Amended
PPO
Complaint.
W
3. On June 2,2020, Iserved thismotion and supportingdocuments on Defendant’scounsel,
KR
together with correspondence statingthat Defendant had 21 days to within which towithdraw the
Wn
Demurrer inorderto avoid thefilingofthismotion forsanctions.A true and correctcopyof thisletter
ND
isattachedhereto asExhibit B.
4. Plaintiff's
initial
Complaint in thisactionwas filedon February 4, 2019. A trueand
OH
correctcopy of thecurrent operativecomplaint,the Second Amended Complaint, isattachedhereto as
So
Exhibit C.
HS
a
5. The initialComplaint included claims of breach of contract, fraud,retaliation,
and
wrongful termination.While the claimswere allassertedagainstDefendant K12 Health(“K12”) as an
PB
ee
entity,they were all assertedagainst Defendant Marianne Akerland (“Akerland”) in herindividual
WD
capacityas well.The breachof contractand retaliation
claimswere based upon alterego allegations.
BRP
oe
6. The partiesagreed thatDefendants notfilea responsivepleading initially
to permitearly
ee
DWN
settlementdiscussions. Subsequently, in October 2019, Defendants sent a “meet-and-confer”letter
ee
regarding a potentialdemurrer and perceived deficienciesin the Complaint. Defendants’ primary
HI
concern in discussionswas whether the fraudclaims lacked specificity. Based on thesediscussions
we
Rm
between myself and defense counselBruce Timm, counsel agreedthat Plaintiff
amend the Complaint to
DO
furtherspecifythefraud claims.Plaintiffscounseladditionallystated
Plaintiffwould addwage andhour
DN
claims intoa FirstAmended Complaint. There was little,
ifany, mention of thealterego allegations
FF
VN
againstAkerland as being aconcern.
Nn
NN
7. Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on November 12, 2019. It
YW
supplemented the fraudclaims asdiscussedand added wage andhour claims. The wage and hour claims
NHN
F
were assertedagainstK12 and againstAkerland inher individualcapacity.
HN
N
8. In December 2019, Defendants sent another “meet-and-confer” regarding a potential
NY
D
demurrer to the FAC. Surprisingly,defense counsel (thistime Kendall Fisher)took issuewith the
YA
N
specificityofthe fraud claims,which counsel seemingly agreed to before filingtheFAC. Defense
ao
Ny
counsel secondarilyexpressed concern about individual liability
claims againstAkerland. Plaintiff’s
counsel statedindividualliability
was based on alter
ego allegationsand Labor Code §558.1. Defense
counsel saidshe would research theprovided authorityand laterdetermine how torespond. However,
ratherthanrespond, Defendants immediately filed a Demurreras toallcausesof action.
Bf
9. On February 21,2020, the Court issueditsOrder on the Demurrer. Attached heretoas
Nn
Exhibit D isa trueand correctcopy of the Court Order partiallydenying
DB
and partially
granting the
Demurrer to FAC.
NN
10... On February 25, 2020, Plaintiff
filedhisverifiedSecond Amended Complaint (“SAC”).
Oo
The SAC includesamendments providing and clarifyingfactual
oOo
allegations
to support both alter
ego
10 liability
and individualliability
under Labor Code §558.1.
11 11. The allegations
and claims inthis caseassert a classicexample of alterego liability.
12 Akerland allegedly treatedK12 as her alter ego by repeatedly and improperly withdrawing and
13 commingling corporate funds,not holdingregular meetings,and underfunding K12 such thatPlaintiff
14 was unable tobe paid. As alleged,Plaintiff
was concerned by underfunding and stolenfunds impacting
15 the company and Plaintiff's
own wages, Plaintiffraisedhisconcerns to Akerland and Akerland, ashis
16 boss and soleowner of K12, terminatedPlaintiffshortly
thereafter.
17 12. On March 19,2020, defense counselsenta “meet-and-confer letter”
regardinga potential
18 demurrer to theSAC. Defense counsel assertedthe SAC’s allegationsof liability
pursuant toalterego
19 and Labor Code §558.1 againstDefendant Akerland were “deficient.”No legalauthority
or basiswas
20 provided fortheseconclusions. A true andcorrectcopy of thisletter
isattachedas Exhibit E.
21 13. Defendant’s letter
suggested theSAC is“deficient”because some allegationsinthe SAC
22 were similartoallegationscontainedwithin anothercomplaint asserting
an alteregotheory involvingthe
23 same firms. This contentionishighly misleading. First,it
ignores multipleparagraphs includedin the
24 SAC (including paragraphs 9, 10, 107, 115, and dozens of other paragraphs relatingtoAkerland’s
25 conduct) distinct
from the othercase. Second, different
attorneys from my firm handled thedraftingof
26 therespectivecomplaints. Third,itiscommon forpleadingsinvolving thesame claims forrelief
drafted
27 by thesame firmtohave some minimal similarities.
28
14. On March 19, 2020, Iresponded to Defendant’s letterand referencedmultiple cases
(includingRutherford Holdings, Bookasta, and Leek) which provide legalsupportfor thepositionthat
NO
theSAC’s factualallegations
are sufficient
atthepleading stage.Further,asDefendant provided nolegal
WD
support forher position,
I requested Defendant provide legalsupport fora potentialdemurrer.A true
BR
and correctcopy ofthise-mail isattachedhereto asExhibit F.
Wn
15. The followingweek, on March 23,2020,defense counselprovided a responsewhich again
DBD
suggested Plaintiff's
SAC isimproper because thereare some similarities
to adifferentalterego case
ON
which I was not handling.Surprisingly,defensecounsel mocked Plaintiff's
requestfor legalauthority
and legalsupportfor thedemurrer. Again, Defendant provided no legalbasisforthepotentialdemurrer.
Oo
Iresponded andagain statedIwas nothandling theother caseand similarities
inpleadings by thesame
SO
firm isirrelevant
to whether ademurrer is appropriate.For asecond time, Irequested legalsupportfor
a
HF
thedemurrer. A trueand correctcopy of thise-mailexchange isattachedheretoas ExhibitG.
pO
a
ea
16. | On theafternoon ofMarch 23,2020, defensecounsel responded butagain didnot provide
WD
ea
legalsupport forthe potentialdemurrer. Instead,defense counselmocked Plaintiff's
request forlegal
BR
ee
supportand asked Plaintiff
to show theSAC was not deficient
as toallegationsofan “unjustresult.”
For
WNW
a thirdtime,Defendant did notprovide legalsupport for a demurrer.A trueand correctcopy of thise-
DBD
ee
mail exchange isattachedhereto asExhibit H.
NIN
Ree
17. Having received threeletters
from Defendant which failedtoarticulatelegalsupportfor
OH
demurrer, Isent defensecounsel a lengthyletterdatedMarch 23, 2020,which describedin detail
legal
DO
RO
and factual support forPlaintiffsposition thatthe SAC sufficiently
pleaded alterego. The letter
referencednumerous paragraphswithin theSAC and provideddetailedlegalanalysisfrom multiplecases
F&
KN
(includingRutherford Holdings and Bookasta) in support. A trueand correctcopy of this e-mail
NN
NH
exchange isattached heretoas ExhibitH.
WwW
NN
18. Inresponse, defensecounsel sentan e-mailaccusingPlaintiff,
without basis,
of “unfairly”
NH
F
suing Defendant Akerland. For afourth time,Defendant did not provideany legalsupport orbasis for
WN
N
thepotentialdemurrer. A trueand correctcopy of thise-mailexchange is attachedheretoasExhibit I.
DD
NY
19. On March 24,2020, Isent ane-mail todefense counselwhich again expressedfrustration
ANA
N
that,while I provided detailedlegalsupport for my position,
defense counsel continuallyrefused to
ao
NH
provide any legalsupport orlegalbasis forthedemurrer and was, in effect,
ignoring thecontentof my
correspondence. For a fourth time,I requested Defendant provide legalauthorityfor her potential
YP
demurrer relatingtoalterego and Labor Code § 558.1. A trueand correctcopy of thise-mailexchange
WY
isattachedhereto asExhibit I.
KR
20. One week later,
on March 31,defense counsel sentanother letter
regardingthe potential
WNW
demurrer. For the fifthtime,Defendant did not provide meaningful legalsupport or analysisfor a
ND
potentialdemurrer. Instead,Defendant referencedthe prior Court Order and concluded the SAC’s
allegationsremained “deficient”and “hardlymore factual”than before.Defendant failedtorespond to
Oe
extensivelegalauthority and supportPlaintiff
recentlyprovided (i.e.
decisions inRutherford Holdings,
So
Bookasta, and Leek). A trueand correctcopy ofthisletterisattachedheretoas Exhibit J.
CO
a
21. Irequested fora fifthtimeDefendant provide legalsupport forher positionand respond
KF
a
to legalauthorityand analysisI provided supportingPlaintiff'sposition.I additionally
suggested a
BBO
ea
telephonicconference todetermine the defensepositionand basis fordemurrer sinceDefendant did not
WD
ea
articulate
itinwriting. A trueand correctcopy of thise-mailisattachedhereto asExhibit K.
BR
ea
22. OnApril 1,2020,counsel helda telephonicconferenceto discussthethreateneddemurrer.
DWN
Despite repeatedrequestsforDefendant’s legalsupport andauthorityfordemurrer, and fora responseto
ee
multiplecases provided insupport ofPlaintiffsposition,Defendant refused forasixth timeto provide
IQ
me
OH
any legalsupport.
23. Instead,defense counsel stated the alterego allegationswere “deficient”because an
Ome
DO
“unjustresult”would not occur,as K12 couldcover any judgment issued and applying “alter
ego” was
unnecessary. Defense counsel furtherrequested Akerland be dismissed without prejudice because
KF
NP
litigation
isstressful,
and if K12could notcover a judgment thenPlaintiff
could attempttoadd Akerland
NH
NN
back inbased on “alterego” liability.
In addition,defensecounsel requestedPlaintiff
remove claims for
Ww
individualliability
under Labor Code § 558.1 because thestatutewas “notmeant” toapply toAkerland
NHN
F
sinceK12 could cover any judgment issued. Again, defense counsel suggestedthisissue be revisited
NHN
N
laterifK12 could notcover a judgment because litigation
is stressful
forDefendant Akerland. Rather
NY
ND
than providelegalsupport forthedemurrer, defense counselrepeatedlyassertedAkerland shouldnot be
N
Oo
N
sued because K12 could cover anyjudgment and claims forindividual liability
were unnecessaryand
Ke
caused stressforAkerland.
PPO
24. —_In
addition,
during thisconversationand correspondence leading toit,Idirecteddefense
W
counsel tospecialinterrogatoryresponsesserved by Plaintiff
inDecember 2019 which further
specified
BR
Akerland’s conduct and supporting“alterego” liability.
While heightened specificity
isnot requiredto
HW
plead “alterego,” additionalallegations
could be added ifnecessary,making theultimategoal of the
ND
threateneddemurrer unclearother thanto delaythelitigation
and increasecosts.A trueandcorrectcopy
ofrelevantportions ofPlaintiff's
SpecialInterrogatoryresponses areattachedhereto asExhibit L.
Oo
25. The following day, I received an e-mail from defense counsel includinginaccurate
So
characterizations
of thetelephonic conference.Those issuesaside, defensecounsel shockingly saidhe
KO
a
already provided “sufficient
case law” and legal supportfor the demurrer,and oddly statedtheprior
a
Court Order detailedhow theSAC is “deficient.”For a seventhtime, Defendant failedtoprovide any
BP
ea
legalsupport orbasisforthe demurrer.
WD
ea
26. On April 6,2020, I sent
a responsetodefense counsel’sassertionsand,fora seventhtime,
BP
a eo
requested Defendant provide legalsupportand legal basisforthe threateneddemurrer. Ifurtherurged
DWN
Defendant toreview the Rutherford,Bookasta, andLeek cases which I previously
discussedin detail
and
ee
requested Defendant’sresponse to thislegalauthority.A trueand correctcopy of thisletter
isattached
NID
mee
heretoas Exhibit M.
Ow
27. On April 9,2020, defense counsel responded and disagreedwith my characterization
of
Rm
DO
thetelephone conference. Defense counselagain assertedtheSAC is“deficient,”
yet failed
foran eighth
DN
time toprovideany legalsupportor legalauthority
forthispositionand failedtorespondto legal
authority
KF
HN
Plaintiff
repeatedlyprovided.
ND
VN
28. On April 20,2020, I informed defensecounsel Plaintiff
would not engage indiscussions
NO
Ww
relatingtoa potentialdemurrer unless Defendant provided substantivelegalsupport and aresponse to
FF
N
NWN
legalauthorities
provided by Plaintiff.
A trueand correctcopy of this
letterisattachedheretoasExhibit
N
N.
NY
ND
29. On May 11, 2020,Defendant Akerland filed
her demurrer toPlaintiffsSAC.
NY
ao
NU
30. Attached hereto as Exhibit O isa true and correctcopy of theReply Brieffiledby
Defendant Akerland in relation
to herdemurrer to Plaintiff's
FirstAmended Complaint.
31. As the resultofDefendant’s and defensecounsel’s tactics
in filingabaselessdemurrer
without engaging ina substantivemeet-and-confer effort,
Ihad to spend a considerableamount of time
B
toresolve thisissue.Defendant’s frivolousdemurrer necessitated
Plaintiff
to incurreasonablecostsand
WN
attorneyfeesin opposing thedemurrer,conducting researchrelatingtothedemurrer and thismotion,and
DB
inmaking thismotion. In all,I haveexpended approximately 33.9 hours inpreparingthisMotion and
NN
supportingdocuments, and inopposing the demurrer.My hourlybilling
Oo
rateis$350.00 per hourin this
matter. Iexpect to spend another2.5 hoursdraftingany reply thatmight
So
be necessitated
and preparing
10 forand appearing at thehearing ofthis motion. Plaintiff
reservesthe rightto updatethe Court on the
11 totalamount of feesincurred and time expended and may submit anotherdeclarationinsupport ofthat
12 update. In addition,
Plaintiffincurreda $60.00 filingfee.Therefore, Plaintiff
requeststhatDefendant
13 MARIANNE J.AKERLAND and hercounsel be ordered topay monetary sanctionstoPlaintiffinthe
14 sum of $12,800.
15
16 Ideclare underpenalty ofperjury under thelaws ofthe StateofCaliforniathatthe foregoingistrue and
17 correct. Executed this2™ day of June 2020,at Sacramento, California.
18
19 —
ZAG ECBliezerCohen
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"Fa
DECLARATION OF ELIEZER COHEN
EXHIBIT A
i al iSS TS alee eee
BOUTIN JONES INC.
Bruce M. Timm (SBN 199679)
Kimberly A. Lucia(SBN 266503)
Kendall C.Fisher(SBN 322155)
555 CapitolMall,Suite 1500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916)321-4444
Fax: (916)441-7597
Email: btimm@boutinjones.com
klucia@boutinjones.com
kfisher@boutinjones.com
AttorneysforDefendants MJ Akerland, R.N.,APNC dba
K12 Health,and Marianne J.Akerland
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF PLACER
DAVID MOELLER, Case No. SCV 0042445
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT MARIANNE J.
AKERLAND’S NOTICE OF HEARING
V. ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
MJ AKERLAND, R.N. A PROFESSIONAL
NURSING CORPORATION doing businessas DATE: — July 17,2020
K12 HEALTH, a California
Corporation; TIME: 8:30 a.m.
MARIANNE J.AKERLAND, an individual;
and DEPT.: 31
DOES 1-10,inclusive,
Defendants. Action Filed: February4, 2019
TrialDate: September 21,2020
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thaton July 17,2020 at 8:30a.m.,or as soonthereafter
as the
mattercan be heardin Department 31of theabove-entitledCourt,locatedat10820 JusticeCenter
Dr.,Roseville,CA 95678, Defendant Marianne J.Akerland (“Akerland”)will,and hereby does,
demur to theSecond Amended Complaint (“SAC”), filedby Plaintiff
David Moeller(“Plaintiff”),
on thegrounds that,
pursuant toCode of CivilProcedure section
430.10, subd.(e),Plaintiff
failed
toplead factssufficient
to constitute
a causeof actionagainst
Akerland as toPlaintiff's
firstcause
of actionfor breach ofcontract;fifthcause ofaction forretaliation;
sixthcause ofaction for
wrongful termination;seventh cause of action for unpaidwages; eighthcause of action for
l
Naticeaf Hearing
anDamurrertaDilaintifPo
Cannand
AmandodCamnlaint tamay.n1
unreimbursed businessexpenses;and ninthcauseof actionforwaitingtimepenalties.
This Demurrer is based on this Notice of Hearing on Demurrer, the Demurrer, the
Declarationof Bruce M. Timm, the Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities,
and theRequest for
Judicial
Notice filedandserved herewith,
on thepleadingsand files
of recordinthismatter,andon
such oralargument andadmissibleevidence asmay bepresentedatthe hearingofthematter.
Pursuantto Local Rule20.2.3,the courtwillissuea tentative
rulingforthismatteron the
courtday before thehearing.The tentativerulingwillbe available
after12:00 noon as an audio
recordingaccessibleat (916)408-6480; the tentative
rulingwillalso be available
at thecourt’s
website,www.placer.courts.ca.gov.
The tentative
rulingshallbecome thefinalruling
on thematter
and nohearing will
be heldunlessoralargument istimelyrequestedor thetentative
rulingindicates
otherwise.Requests fororalargument must bemade bycalling(916)408-6481 nolaterthan4:00
p-m. onthe courtdaypriorto thehearing.
Dated: May 11,2020 BOUTIN JONES INC.
By:
BRUCE M. TIMM
AttorneysforDefendants MJ Akerland, R.N.,APNC
dba K12 Health,and Marianne J.Akerland
BOUTIN JONES INC.
Bruce M. Timm (SBN 199679)
Kimberly A. Lucia(SBN 266503)
Kendall C.Fisher(SBN 322155)
555 CapitolMall,Suite 1500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916)321-4444
Fax: (916)441-7597
Email: btimm@boutinjones.com
klucia@boutinjones.com
kfisher@boutinjones.com
AttorneysforDefendants MJ Akerland, R.N.,APNC dba
K12 Health,and Marianne J.Akerland
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF PLACER
11 DAVID MOELLER, Case No. SCV 0042445
12 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
V. DEFENDANT MARIANNE J.
AKERLAND’S DEMURRER TO
14 MJ AKERLAND, R.N. A PROFESSIONAL PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
NURSING CORPORATION doing businessas COMPLAINT
15 K12 HEALTH, a California
Corporation;
MARIANNE J.AKERLAND, an individual;
and DATE: — July 17,2020
16 DOES 1-10,inclusive, TIME: 8:30 a.m.
DEPT.: 31
17 Defendants.
Action Filed: February4, 2019
18 TrialDate: September 21,2020
19
20 I. INTRODUCTION
21 This isnow Plaintiff
David Moeller’s third
attempt tohold Defendant Marianne Akerland
22 individually
liableforbreach ofcontractand severalemployment claims,althoughAkerland was
23 neithera partyto the contractnorwas shePlaintiff's
employer. This Court alreadyruledthat
24 Plaintiff
failedtopleadsufficient
factstosupport individual
liability
against
Akerland in its
Order
25 sustainingAkerland’s demurrer to Plaintiff's
FirstAmended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff's
26 Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) remainsdeficient,
and itisclear
thatPlaintiffcannot
justify
27 suing Akerland individuallyforhis first,
and fifth
through ninth causesof action. Akerland’s
28 demurrer shouldbe sustainedastothesecauses ofaction,withoutleavetoamend.
l
Points
andAuthorities
ISOMarianneJ. Akerland’s
DemurrertoSecondAmendedComplaint — 1079362.5
Plaintiff's
SAC allegesthe followingcauses ofaction againstDefendants MJ Akerland,
R.N.,a Professional
Nursing Corporation dbaK12 Health(“K12 Health”)and Marianne Akerland
(collectively,
“Defendants”)arisingoutof hisformeremployment withK12: (1)breachof contract;
(2)intentional
misrepresentation;
(3)negligentmisrepresentation;
(4)falsepromise;(5)retaliation;
(6)wrongful termination
in violation
of public
policy;(7)unpaid wages;(8)unreimbursed business
expenses;and (9)waitingtime penalties.
Plaintiff's
first
cause of actionfor breach of contractfails
against DefendantAkerland
because thereisnodisputethatDefendant Akerland was notpersonallya partytotheemployment
contract,
and thus cannot be suedfor itsallegedbreach. The only way Akerland could be held
personallyliable
fora contract
she didnot enter
intowould be throughalterego.However, justlike
inthe FAC, Plaintiff
hasfailedto pleadthe requisite
factssupportingalterego. While Plaintiff
offersalaundrylist of empty
alter
ego “buzzwords,”theyare devoidof anyfacts.
More importantly,
notonly doesPlaintiff
failtoallegeany factssupporting“unjust
result,”
which isrequired
to plead
alter
ego, buthe providesnomore than asinglepassingreferencetothestandard.Withoutpleading
any facts
to supportalter
ego, andwith no more thana weak allusion
to therequired“unjust
result”
element (let
aloneprovidingany factstosupport“unjustresult”),
alter
ego hasnot beensufficiently
alleged,
and thereisno basistoholdAkerland liable
forbreach ofa contract
thatshewas nota party
to.The demurrer tothe first
causeof actionshouldbe sustained
without leavetoamend.
There isno individual
liability
for theretaliation
and wrongful termination
claims(fifthand
sixthcausesof action)asa matterof law. (Reno v.Baird (1998) 18Cal.4th640, 663;Miklosy v.
Regents of University
of California
(2008)44 Cal.4th876,900.).Further,evenassuming,arguendo,
thatthealterego allegations
were sufficient,
analterego findingdoes notmake anindividualthe
employer. (Leekv.Cooper, supra, 194Cal.App.4that p.409 (“Adeterminationthata personisthe
alterego ofa corporationdoesnot make the alter
ego an employer.”).)The demurrer tothe fifth
and sixthcausesofactionmust be sustainedwithoutleavetoamend.
Plaintiff's
remaining claims (seventh,
eighth,and ninthcauseof action)forwage and hour
violations
also fail
againstDefendant Akerland. The Court hasalreadyheld thatPlaintiff
failedto
allegetherequisite
factstoestablish
individualliability
againstAkerland underLabor Code section
2
Dainta
andAuthnwitingn
TODD
NA anwlinnen
TOAl Aol
n nw AI,
Naw.eneoeQecmmandl
Mee mllin dD Mand
tek ananarn
es
558.1,and theSAC fails
toallegeanynew facts
tosupport individual
liability.
The demurrer should
be sustainedwithoutleavetoamend astothe seventh,eighth,
and ninthcausesof action.
Bringing an individual,
who isnot an employer, intoan employment case isa serious
decision.Indeed,attemptingtohold an individual
liableunderthealterego theoryisaseriousand
drasticstepthatshouldnot beutilizedbycounsel asa mere litigation
tactic.(SeeHasso v.Hapke
(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th107, 155 (“Alter
ego isan extreme remedy, sparinglyused.”)Yet thatis
exactlywhat Plaintiff's
counsel isattemptingtodo here.As setforthinthe accompanying request
for judicial
notice,thissame lawfirm didtheexactsame thing inavery similar
casepending inthis
Court. This typeof litigation
tacticshouldnot be allowed.Akerland’s demurrerto thefirst,
and
fifth
through ninthcausesof actionshouldbe sustainedwithoutleavetoamend.
11 Il. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12 Plaintiff's
SAC allegesthefollowing:
13 Defendant K12 Health isaprofessional
nursing corporation