arrow left
arrow right
  • Moeller, David vs. MJ Akerland, R.N., A Professional Nursing CorporationCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Moeller, David vs. MJ Akerland, R.N., A Professional Nursing CorporationCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Moeller, David vs. MJ Akerland, R.N., A Professional Nursing CorporationCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Moeller, David vs. MJ Akerland, R.N., A Professional Nursing CorporationCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Moeller, David vs. MJ Akerland, R.N., A Professional Nursing CorporationCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Moeller, David vs. MJ Akerland, R.N., A Professional Nursing CorporationCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Moeller, David vs. MJ Akerland, R.N., A Professional Nursing CorporationCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Moeller, David vs. MJ Akerland, R.N., A Professional Nursing CorporationCivil-Roseville document preview
						
                                

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