Elizabeth Rodriguez v. Ronald Abaro DDS, Inc. dba Chino Family Dental, et al.

(18) Battery against Cheung;

(19) Sexual battery against Cheung;

(20) Assault against Cheung;

(21) Violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) against CFD; and

(22) Wrongful/constructive termination against CFD.

Defendants answered. On June 23, 2026, the Court granted Vandecar’s Motion for

Summary Adjudication on all causes of action pled against him.

A. The FAC’s Allegations

The FAC alleges Rodriguez was employed by CFD as a registered dental assistant (¶ 27).

She suffers from depression and anxiety (¶ 28). In the course of her employment, supervisor

Bermudez would stand over and stare at her, talk down and overexplain things to her, and

address her unprofessionally before patients. Bermudez, a married man, and coworker Cheung

would kiss and engage in an over-friendly manner with each other that made Plaintiff

uncomfortable. Cheung touched Rodriguez inappropriately, causing a panic attack on one

occasion that forced her to leave work early and take several days of medical leave. Also,

manager Erika Laza called Rodriguez hard-headed in front of patients (¶¶ 29-33, 36, 42).

Rodriguez was once assigned to work with a dentist who potentially had Covid but was not

required to take leave or test before returning. Yet, when Rodriguez took off sick unrelated to

any Covid symptoms, she was required to obtain a negative Covid test before returning (¶¶ 34-

35, 39). Further, Rodriguez requested a day off on two different occasions to assist family and

was denied those time-off requests (¶¶ 38, 40). Plaintiff was also subjected to false and improper

write-ups and warnings. Finally, due to the stress at work, she quit on May 23, 2021 (¶¶ 41, 43,

45).

The FAC also alleges that Rodriguez was not given uninterrupted meals and rest breaks,

which resulted in the premium wage not being paid or recorded in her wage statements. She was

not reimbursed for the Covid test she was required to take, and for vehicle expense when she

traveled to different locations (¶¶ 39, 46-49, 62, 68, 81-82, 90). When she was constructively

terminated, Rodriguez did not receive her final paycheck in a timely manner (¶ 75).

Finally, the FAC alleges Defendants Abaro, Hurn, and Vandecar were owners, directors,

officers, or managing agents of CFD and personally involved in the wage matters. Alternatively,

they were the alter egos of CFD (¶¶ 13-14, 17, 20, 23).

B. Pending Motion

Defendant Hurn moves for summary adjudication of the 1st through 5th causes of action.

Plaintiff Rodriguez opposes. Defendant Hurn replies. After issuing a tentative ruling and holding

a hearing on the motion, the Court now issues its final ruling.5

IX. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

With her Opposition, Plaintiff Rodriguez filed 7 evidentiary objections to Hurn’s

Declaration at various portions within ¶¶ 1, 3, 6-7, & 9 (objections ## 1-6), and Andrade’s

Declaration at ¶ 2 (objection # 7) on various legal grounds. The Court SUSTAINS objections #5

(Hurn’s Decl. at ¶ 9, p. 3:2-4), but OVERRULES objections 1-4 and 6-7.

X. WHY SUMMARY ADJUDICATION SHOULD BE GRANTED Under the FAC, Hurn’s liability rests on two theories: alter ego of CFD or personally

under mandates of Labor Code section 558.1.

A. Applicable Law

To establish an alter ego theory, the plaintiff must establish a unity of interest and

resultant injustice. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 415.) Before a corporate veil

may be pierced (i) there must appear a unity of interest and ownership that the individuality of

the corporation and owner(s) do not exist, and (ii) that allowing the corporate veil to stand would

result in inequitable results. (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (Sonora Union High

School District) (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538.) Factors indicating a unity of interest include

commingling funds, failing to issue stock or maintain corporate records, identical equitable

ownership, inadequate capitalization, and disregarding corporate formalities. (Zoran Corp. v.

Chen (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 799, 811-12.)

5 The Court finds that the moving party has complied with its meet-and-confer obligation.

Labor Code section 558.1, subdivisions (a)-(b), provide that a natural person who is an

owner, director, officer, or managing agent of the employer who violates, or causes to be

violated, “Sections 203, 226, 226.7, 1193.6, 1194, or 2802, may be held liable as the employer

for such violations.” Plaintiff’s 1st through 5th causes of action are brought under Labor Code

sections 203 (3rd), 226 (5th), 226.7 (1st-2nd), and 2802 (4th).

One cannot be liable merely because of status as an owner, officer, director, or managing

agent. (Espinoza v. Hepta Run, Inc. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 44, 59 [Espinoza].) “However, that

does not necessarily mean the individual must have had involvement in the day-to-day

operations of the company, nor is it required the individual authored the challenged employment

policies or specifically approved their implementation. But to be held personally liable he or she

must have had some oversight of the company’s operations or some influence on corporate

policy that resulted in Labor Code violations.” (Ibid.) An owner, officer, director, or managing

agent will be liable for wage-and-hour violations if either (i) he was personally involved in the

violation or (ii) he sufficiently participated in the activities of the employer so that he may be

deemed to have contributed to, and caused the violation. (Usher v. White (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th

883, 896-97 [Usher].)

In determining if an owner, officer, director, or managing agent violated or caused to be

violated a specified Labor Code provision, the court will need to examine the particular facts in

light of the conduct, or lack of conduct, attributed to the owner, director, officer, or managing

agent, but if there is no dispute on the material facts, then the issue may be resolved as a matter

of law. (Usher, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at p. 897.)

B.

Factual Background

The relevant facts are that Rodriguez was employed by CFD on approximately July 8,

2020. Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts (UF) #14 (undisputed). She stopped

working on March 23, 2021, when she unilaterally walked off the job and never returned. UF

#15 (disputed) & 23 (undisputed). Plaintiff disputes the claim that she unilaterally left; her

position is that she left due to a hostile confrontation and her departure constituted a constructive

termination.

Hurn lives in Michigan. She is not involved in any of the daily operations of CFD, nor its

policies, procedures, and/or hiring or termination decisions of its employees, including

Rodriguez. Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts (UF) #1. Plaintiff disputes this,

noting that an October 2025 Secretary of State filing lists Hurn as a director and secretary of

CFD [see AF #5]. Although Hurn is listed on paperwork going back to 2013 as CFD’s director or

officer, since 2019, she has not been involved in day-to-day issues for CFD. UF #13. Plaintiff

does not dispute the fact, but disputes by making a legal argument. Plaintiff adds that after this

litigation was filed, Hurn replaced Vandecar as Chief Financial Officer and agent for service of

process for CFD. AF #6.

Hurn owned no shares in CFD between July 2020 and March 2021. UF #2 (undisputed).

CFD is a corporation that runs a single dental office. Abaro is the sole shareholder. UF #3

(undisputed).

Hurn is employed by One Best Life, Inc. (OBL) or One Best Life Management LLC

(OBLM). UF #5. Plaintiff disputes because Hurn attests that she is one of the founders of OBL,

which was affiliated with CFD [see also AF #7]. Hurn is involved in business dealings for OBL.

UF #12. Plaintiff disputes to point out that Hurn’s declaration was signed in Tennessee, not her

claimed home in Michigan. Hurn did not micro-manage the day-to-day operations of CFD. UF

#21. Plaintiff disputes to assert a legal argument. OBL and/or OBLM provide management

services for CFD. AF #8.

Between 2020 and 2026, CFD was in Chino. It is a separate corporation. It pays its own

bills, does its own payroll, and pays its own taxes. UF #6-7 (undisputed). CFD employs an on-

site office manager to administer the day-to-day operations. UF #8 (undisputed).

During Rodriguez’s employment, Rodriguez had no material and direct interactions with

Hurn. UF #4 & 17 (undisputed). Hurn was not consulted on any issue involving Rodriguez,

including her hiring or termination, or any alleged Labor Code violations. UF #9-10 & 18.

Plaintiff disputes to make a legal argument. Hurn has no personal knowledge about Rodriguez’s

employment with CFD, including on any wage-and-hour matter. UF #19. Plaintiff disputes to

assert a legal argument.

C. Alter Ego Liability

No alter ego liability can exist against Hurn since she holds no ownership interest in

CFD. It is undisputed that Defendant Abaro is the sole shareholder of CFD [UF #2-3]. Even if

Hurn is an officer or director of CFD, it does not establish a unity of interest in and ownership of

CFD to support alter ego.

D. Alleged Oversight & Management

In 2020 and 2021, Hurn admits that she would have been listed in some paperwork as an

officer/director of CFD. (UF #13.) Thus, she would fit into the category of one who could be

liable under Labor Code section 558.1.

However, Hurn indicates that since 2019, she has not been involved with CFD’s daily

operations. She played no role in its policies, procedures, or employment decisions, including the

employment of and separation of Rodriguez. (UF #1, 4, 9-10, 17, 19, & 21.) Rather, the daily

operations were a matter of CFD’s on-site office manager. (UF #8.) OBL and/or OBLM provide

management services for CFD [AF #8], which include marketing, outside services, and other

processes [Hurn Decl. at ¶ 2]. Hurn is employed by OBL, which she founded, but has no direct

ownership as to OBL [Hurn’s Decl. at ¶ 3]. Hurn engages in business dealings for OBL [UF #5

& 12; AF #7], i.e., engages in long-range planning and high-level strategic development,

including growth and expansion issues [Hurn Decl. at ¶ 5].

No evidence establishes a triable issue of fact as to whether Hurn managed operations or

created the wage-and-hour policies that impacted Rodriguez.

In Usher, the Court of Appeal found no section 558.1 liability of the owner when she did

not participate in the day-to-day operations, made no operational, managerial, or policy

determinations, and was not involved in the contractor agreements, but she merely signed loan

documents, provided funds, and electronically signed paychecks. (Usher, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th

at pp. 897-98, 899.) In contrast, in Espinoza, the individual was the owner who approved the

policy for paying the employee truck drivers that violated various Labor Code provisions.

(Espinoza, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at pp. 58, 60.)

The facts and evidence are akin to Usher as opposed to Espinoza. Hurn had no direct

involvement with paying CFD employees, granting or denying meals and rest breaks, or granting

or denying requests for reimbursement. There are no facts indicating that (i) she set policies for

paying CFD employees, providing meals and rest breaks, or reimbursement, and (ii) she had any

operational control or influence during Rodriguez’s employment.

XI. CONCLUSION Defendant Hurn’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of the 1st-5th causes of action is

GRANTED. [UF #1-10, 12-15, 17-19, 21, & 23, and responses thereto; AF #7-8; and cited

evidence: Andrade & Hurn’s Declarations; and Rodriguez & Andrade’s Depositions].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court