AMAG, Inc. v. Cubas, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV38459 Matter: Motion to Compel Further Responses Moving Party: Zambrano Responding Party: Arseneva Ruling: The Motion is denied. Moving party to give notice. The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect. If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff AMAG, Inc. filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) fraudulent conversion, (2) misrepresentation, (3) constructive fraud, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, and (5) declaratory relief. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Vlaze Media Networks, Inc. sought to avoid the judgment against it in case no. BC587406 by fraudulently transferring certain assets to the other Defendants or with the help of the other Defendants.

On May 1, 2023, Anastasiia Arseneva filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”) for (1) breach of written contract, (2) quantum meruit, (3) violation of Pen. Code §§ 528.5, 529, and (4) declaratory relief.

Zambrano now seeks to compel further responses from Arseneva at deposition as to her immigration status. Labor Code Section 1171.5(b) explicitly provides that for purposes of enforcing state labor and employment laws, a person's immigration status is irrelevant to the issue of liability. It further mandates that "no inquiry shall be permitted into a person's immigration status" in such discovery unless the inquiring party demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the inquiry is necessary to comply with federal immigration law.

Defendants argue this protection does not apply because Arseneva is suing for "Breach of Contract" rather than specific Labor Code violations (like missed meal breaks), and they characterize her as a "non-immigrant visitor" rather than an "alien/immigrant." The Court finds these distinctions unpersuasive. The protections of Section 1171.5 are intended to prevent the use of immigration status as a tool of intimidation in disputes arising from employment relationships. Whether the claim is framed as a statutory labor violation or a breach of an employment contract, the underlying policy remains an individual’s right to seek redress for work performed should not be contingent upon their immigration status.

Defendants assert that Arseneva's work authorization is a threshold issue of law because a contract for illegal employment is void. While it is true that courts will generally not enforce an illegal contract, California courts have recognized that employees may still recover for work actually performed under theories such as quantum meruit, regardless of work authorization. Because the Court finds that the inquiry into immigration/work status is prohibited by statute in this context, an evidentiary hearing on the "legality" of the contract based on that status is unnecessary.