Vaidya v. Dhesi et al.

Case: Vaidya v. Dhesi et al. Case No. CV2026-0221 Hearing Date: July 10, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00 a.m.

Demurrer:

The Court rules on defendants Rajpreet Dhesi, Anita Dhesi, Keerut Dhesi, (collectively, “Deshi defendants”) and Blueberry Trading, LLC’s (collectively, “defendants”) demurrer to plaintiff Aditya Vaidya’s (“plaintiff”) complaint as follows:

• Defendants’ demurrer on the grounds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state facts sufficient to support an alter ego theory of liability against the individual Deshi defendants is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The Court finds that plaintiff has stated facts sufficient to allege an alter ego theory of liability. (Kao v. Joy Holiday (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 199, 205-207; Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 415 [“[t]o recover on an alter ego theory, a plaintiff . . . must allege sufficient facts to show a unity of interest and ownership, and an unjust result if the corporation is treated as the sole actor”]; Complaint ¶¶ 18-21.)

• Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of agreement is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) The Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state facts sufficient to establish that he, an individual, has standing as a third-party beneficiary. (Civ. Code, § 1559; Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2019) 6 Cal.5th 817, 826–827; Pillar Project AG v. Payward Ventures, Inc. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 671, 677; Levy v. Only Cremations for Pets, Inc. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 203, 212; Jensen v. U-Haul Co. of California (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 295, 301; Otay Land Co., LLC v. U.E. Limited, L.P. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 806, 855; Complaint, ¶¶ 12-14, 29-38, Exhs. A, B.)

• Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action for fraud is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The Court finds that plaintiff has stated facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638; see also Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 385, 402; Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384; Complaint ¶¶ 39-48.)

• Defendants’ demurrer to the fourth (failure to provide meal and rest periods), fifth (failure to pay earned wages and overtime compensation), sixth (waiting time penalties), seventh (failure to provide accurate wage statements), eighth (violation of Unfair Competition Law), and ninth (quantum meruit) causes of action are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Aubry, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 967.) The Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state facts sufficient to establish the existence of an employment relationship necessary to support the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action, and further fails to allege facts of either an express or implied request for services to support the ninth cause of action. (Lab.

4 of 5

Code, §§ 201-203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 17200 et seq.; Day v. Alta Bates Medical Ctr. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 243, 248; Complaint ¶¶ 22-28, 54-102.)

Plaintiff may amend his complaint by no later than July 20, 2026. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g).)

If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Motions to quash:

Defendants Rajpreet Dhesi and Anita Dhesi’s motion to quash deposition subpoena for production of business records and Blueberry Trading LLC’s motion to quash deposition subpoena for production of business records are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) The Court finds that Rajpreet Dhesi and Anita Dhesi and Blueberry Trading LLC failed to serve notice of their motions to Bank of America as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3(g). (Rajpreet Dhesi and Anita Dhesi’s Proof of Service, pp. 21- 22 [filed 4/22/26]; Blueberry Trading LLC’s Proof of Service, pp. 18-19 [filed 4/22/26].)

As the Court is denying Blueberry Trading LLC’s motion to quash deposition subpoena for production of business records on procedural grounds, the Court does not does rule on plaintiff’s objections to the declaration of Keerut Dhesi filed in support of the reply to opposition.

If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

5 of 5