Defendants Sea Rounder, Inc. (SRI), Holiday Management, LLC (HM), Robert L. Vreeland, Jr. (Robert), and Mary Ann Vreeland (Mary Ann) have demurred to the complaint of plaintiff, Cynthia L. Olsen. In addition, these defendants have moved to strike portions of the complaint.
Demurrer
First Cause of Action (Sexual Harassment): Sustained as to Mary Ann with leave to amend.
The allegations of the complaint are vague, if not contradictory, as to the nature of the relationship between Mary Ann and plaintiff, and between Mary Ann and RSI and HM. Although plaintiff alleges that plaintiff was employed by each of the defendants (¶ 18), there are no facts alleged to support the assertion that plaintiff was employed directly by Mary Ann. The court is not required to accept conclusory allegations. Further, the allegation that Mary Ann is a partner of SRI and HM (¶ 7) appears to be inconsistent with the allegations that SRI is a corporation and HM is an LLC. Therefore, the court construes the complai
Hearing Date
February 03, 2012
Category
Civil - Unlimited
Type
Wrongful Termination
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendants Sea Rounder, Inc. (SRI), Holiday Management, LLC (HM), Robert L. Vreeland, Jr. (Robert), and Mary Ann Vreeland (Mary Ann) have demurred to the complaint of plaintiff, Cynthia L. Olsen. In addition, these defendants have moved to strike portions of the complaint.
Demurrer
First Cause of Action (Sexual Harassment): Sustained as to Mary Ann with leave to amend.
The allegations of the complaint are vague, if not contradictory, as to the nature of the relationship between Mary Ann and plaintiff, and between Mary Ann and RSI and HM. Although plaintiff alleges that plaintiff was employed by each of the defendants (¶ 18), there are no facts alleged to support the assertion that plaintiff was employed directly by Mary Ann. The court is not required to accept conclusory allegations. Further, the allegation that Mary Ann is a partner of SRI and HM (¶ 7) appears to be inconsistent with the allegations that SRI is a corporation and HM is an LLC. Therefore, the court construes the complai