RENDON-RODRIGUEZ vs LANZ CABINET SHOP, INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION

26CV162947: RENDON-RODRIGUEZ vs LANZ CABINET SHOP, INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION 07/08/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint; filed by Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc., an Oregon Corporation (Defendant) CRS# 203749582378 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/07/2026 Patrick McKinney

Defendant Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is overruled.

I.

Background

Plaintiff Adan Rendon-Rodríguez filed a representative action for civil penalties against his former employer, Lanz, under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees of Lanz. (Compl., Jan. 5, 2026.) Rendon-Rodríguez alleged that in December 2024, he provided the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LDWA) with notice of his proposed action. (Id. ¶ 8; see also Lanz’s Req. J. Notice Supp. Dem. Compl. Ex. B, June 4, 2026 (attaching December 2024 notice).) Rendon-Rodríguez further alleged that in April 2025, at the LWDA’s request (id. Ex. C (attaching LWDA letter)), he provided the LWDA with an amended notice of his proposed action. (Compl. ¶ 9; see also Lanz’s Req. J. Notice Ex. D (attaching April 2025 amended notice).)

In June 2026, Lanz demurred to the Complaint. (Dem. Compl., June 4, 2026.) Lanz argued that Rendon-Rodríguez’s December 2024 notice did not satisfy the pre-filing notice requirement and his April 2025 amended notice did not cure this defect. (Mem. Supp. Dem. Compl. 7:18–9:17, June 4, 2026.) Lanz also argued that this PAGA action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided by section 2699(c) of the Labor Code because Rendon-Rodríguez last worked for Lanz in November 2024 and he filed this action in January 2026. (Id. 9:18–11:12.) Lanz finally argued that Rendon-Rodríguez did not allege sufficient facts to show he has standing as an “aggrieved employee” to prosecute this PAGA action. (Id. 11:13–12:25.)

Rendon-Rodríguez opposed the Demurrer. (Opp’n to Dem. Compl., June 18, 2026.)

II.

Legal Standard

A party may demur to a complaint if it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 430.10(e).) The court must liberally construe the complaint “with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (§ 452; see also Perez v. Golden Empire Trans. Dist. (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1238 (“This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”).) The grounds for the demurrer must “appear[] on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice.” (§ 430.30(a).) 26CV162947: RENDON-RODRIGUEZ vs LANZ CABINET SHOP, INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION 07/08/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint; filed by Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc., an Oregon Corporation (Defendant) CRS# 203749582378 in Department 18 III.

Discussion

The Court overrules the Demurrer as the December 2024 notice is adequate, the action is not time barred, and Rendon-Rodríguez adequately alleged that he is an aggrieved employee.

A. Adequacy of Prefiling Notice to LWDA An aggrieved employee may commence a PAGA action only after they provide written notice to the LWDA and the employer “of the specific provisions of [the Labor Code] alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation,” among other requirements. (Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3(a)(1)(A).) “The prelitigation notice requires more than bare allegations of Labor Code violations.” (Ibarra v. Chuy & Sons Labor, Inc. (2024) 102 Cal.

App. 5th 874, 881.) But the Act does not impose a “heightened preliminary proof requirement” beyond the non-frivolousness requirement provided by section 128.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 545–546; see also Ibarra, 102 Cal. App. 5th at 882 (“PAGA’s prelitigation notice requirement is ‘minimal.’”) (quoting Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 334, 351).)

Here, the Court finds that the December 2024 notice is marginally adequate. In the 17-page notice, Rendon-Rodríguez stated that he worked for Lanz between October 2023 and November 2024 repairing cabinets. (See Lanz’s Req. J. Notice Ex. B, at p.1.) The remaining 16 pages of the December 2024 notice identified Labor Code violations that Rendon-Rodríguez believes Lanz violated, including employment of minors under the age of 16 and misclassification of employees as independent contractors. (See generally id. at pp. 2–16.)

This broad scattershot approach certainly frustrates the purpose of the prefiling notice to “provide sufficient information to allow the LWDA ‘to intelligently assess the seriousness of the alleged violations’ or give the employer enough information ‘to determine what policies or practices are being complained of so as to know whether to fold or fight.’” (Ibarra, 102 Cal. App. 5th at 881 (quoting Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 824, 837) (internal citations omitted).) And that the LWDA requested further facts from Rendon-Rodríguez through an amended notice reinforces this observation.1 (See Lanz’s Req.

J. Notice Ex. C.) But the December 2024 notice satisfied the “minimal” pleading requirements of PAGA. The notice adequately notified Lanz that Rendon-Rodríguez believes its policies or practices concerning compensation, rest breaks, meal periods, among other allegations, were violating his rights under the Labor Code and gave rise to a claim for civil penalties under PAGA. (See, e.g., id. Ex. B, at pp. 1– 8.) Importantly, Lanz did not present any legal authority where a court has reviewed a similar PAGA notice and found that it did not satisfy PAGA’s minimal pleading requirements.

The Court need not address whether the April 2025 amended notice could cure the defects with the December 2024 because the December 2024 notice is adequate.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162947: RENDON-RODRIGUEZ vs LANZ CABINET SHOP, INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION 07/08/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint; filed by Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc., an Oregon Corporation (Defendant) CRS# 203749582378 in Department 18 B. Statute of Limitations An aggrieved employee must bring their action for civil penalties under PAGA within one year. (Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(c)(1); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. § 340(1) (providing one-year statement of limitations for “[a]n action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, if the action is given . . . to an individual and the state.”).)

Here, Rendon-Rodríguez’s last day of work was November 1, 2024. (See Opp’n 11:5.) Accordingly, the last date to file his action was November 1, 2025. But Rendon-Rodríguez filed his Complaint 65 days later, on January 5, 2026. (See Compl.) Thus, Rendon-Rodríguez’s action is time-barred unless the statute of limitations was tolled for at least 65 days.

Rendon-Rodríguez partly argued that the statute of limitations was tolled 65 days from the date the December 2024 notice was filed as the LWDA did not state that it was investigating Rendon- Rodríguez’s allegations. (Opp’n 9:18–10:10.) Rendon-Rodríguez added that if the LWDA’s request for an amended notice had any effect it was to restart the 60-day investigation provided by section 2699.3(a)(2)(A) of the Labor Code. (Id. 10:10–16.) Lanz countered that the 65 days provided by statute provide the maximum tolling limit. (Id. 7:13–28.) Lanz further countered that there is no statutory authority to restart the 65-day timeline where an employee submits an amended notice. (Id. 8:1–10.)

The Court finds that Rendon-Rodríguez’s action was tolled for a total of 114 days. Rendon- Rodríguez’s action was tolled 49 days: from when Rendon-Rodríguez filed his notice on December 26, 2024, through when the LWDA requested he amend his notice on February 13, 2025. Rendon-Rodríguez’s action was further tolled an additional 65 days from when Rendon- Rodríguez filed the requested amended notice on April 1, 2025, as there is no evidence of a response from the LWDA to this amended notice.

Lanz did not present any legal authority that directly supports the proposition that the LWDA lacks authority to request an amended PAGA notice or that the statutory timeline does not begin anew if the aggrieved employee resubmits an amended PAGA notice at the LWDA’s request.

C. Standing as “Aggrieved Employee” An “aggrieved employee” is a “any person who was employed by the alleged violator and personally suffered each of the violations alleged.” (Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(c)(1).)

The Court finds that, liberally construing the allegations, Rendon-Rodríguez adequately alleged facts that he personally suffered each of the alleged violations.

On this point, the Court found Lanz’s arguments unpersuasive in the context of a demurrer. PAGA deputizes an aggrieved employee to represent “other current or former employees against whom a violation of the same provision was committed.” (Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(a).) Against

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162947: RENDON-RODRIGUEZ vs LANZ CABINET SHOP, INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION 07/08/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint; filed by Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc., an Oregon Corporation (Defendant) CRS# 203749582378 in Department 18 this, Rendon-Rodríguez’s allegation purporting to represent all employees of Lanz “working within three years preceding the date of filing Notice with the LWDA and continuing past the LWDA Notice filing date into perpetuity” is problematic. (See Compl. ¶ 1.) Similarly, his allegation that he “suffered the Labor Code violations set forth herein, even if not in the precise exact fashion as other Aggrieved Employees” raises some concerns. (See Compl. ¶ 4 (emphasis added).)

But as Lanz did not move to strike these allegations and instead demurred, the Court must assess the merits of the whole cause of action and not whether parts of it are defective. (See Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 1150, 1167 (“Ordinarily, a general demurrer may not be sustained, nor a motion for judgment on the pleadings granted, as to a portion of a cause of action.”).)

IV. Orders The Demurrer is overruled.

Lanz must file an answer to the Complaint no later than 20 days after Rendon-Rodríguez serves notice of entry of this order.

The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of Rendon-Rodríguez’s PAGA Notice, filed with the LWDA on December 26, 2024; the LWDA’s Notice Directing Submission of Amended PAGA Notices, dated February 13, 2025; and Rendon-Rodríguez’s Amended PAGA Notice, filed with the LWDA on March 28, 2025. The Court denies the request for judicial notice of the filings in this action as moot. 1 The Court does not assign any evidentiary or legal weight to the LWDA’s request for

further information. The LWDA’s letter was written in response to information that is not properly before the Court and beyond assessing the adequacy of the Complaint. The Court only took notice of the fact that the LWDA issued a letter requesting an amended notice from Rendon-Rodríguez.

Nothing in this order precludes the LWDA from taking any actions it deems appropriate concerning its PAGA filings with the LWDA.

***

The Demurrer filed by Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc., an Oregon Corporation on 06/04/2026 is Overruled.

Adan Rendon-Rodriguez (Plaintiff) must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties, and file proof of service.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162947: RENDON-RODRIGUEZ vs LANZ CABINET SHOP, INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION 07/08/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint; filed by Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc., an Oregon Corporation (Defendant) CRS# 203749582378 in Department 18

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.