Francisco Aguilar v Omnitrans, et al

2. CASE NUMBER CASE NAME TYPE OF HEARING CIVRS2510110 Francisco Aguilar v Omnitrans, Defendant Omnitrans’ Demurrer et al to Complaint Tentative Ruling:

Request for Judicial Notice:

The Request for Judicial Notice is denied as moving party does not provide any authority in the notice for its Request for Judicial Notice.

Demurrer:

1. Late-filed Opposition:

On April 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed his Opposition which is untimely. No proof of service for the Opposition was filed, but in its Reply, Omnitrans acknowledges receiving the Opposition on April 29, 2026. The Court, in its discretion, may refuse to consider late-filed papers in ruling on a motion. In such event, the court’s minutes or order must so indicate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).) However, some courts have held that a court has discretion to consider late-filed papers even without a Section 473 showing. (Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202 [filing 2 days late with no showing of prejudice by other side supported court’s discretion in “view of the strong policy of the law favoring the disposition of cases on the merits”].)

In its Reply, Omnitrans objects to the late filed Opposition and requests the Court disregard it as it has been prejudiced by having less time to evaluate and respond to the Opposition. However, Omnitrans waived any defect regarding late filing and service by arguing on the merits in the Reply. (Clark v. Stabond Corp. (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 50, 58-59.) Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion and considers the late-filed Opposition.

2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:

The demurrer is overruled. Omnitrans demurs to the First through Sixth Causes of Action, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

Preliminarily, the Court disregards Exhibit 1 as not properly before the Court and constitutes improper extrinsic evidence. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff exhausted all administrative prerequisites required under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and on August 8, 2025, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) issued Plaintiff a Right-to- Sue Notice, thereby authorizing Plaintiff to file this civil action. Plaintiff alleges he brings all the instant FEHA causes of action pursuant to that Right-to-Sue. Omnitrans fails to advance any arguments as to the Complaint’s failure to allege exhaustion of Plaintiff’s administrative remedies aside from its contentions regarding the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s CRD Complaint.

3. Claims Not Viable against a Public Entity:

The demurrer to the Ninth Cause of Action is sustained, with leave to amend. As to the Ninth and Thirteenth Causes of Action, Omnitrans argues Plaintiff’s claims are not ones that can be made against a public entity. Omnitrans sets forth different arguments as to each cause of action. The Complaint, however, fails to allege vicarious liability as to the Ninth Cause of Action and fails to specifically set forth what actions by Omnitrans’ employees it is being held vicariously liable for.

The demurrer to the Thirteenth Cause of Action is sustained, without leave to amend.1 Governmental entities are not included within the definition of “person” and therefore cannot be sued under the Unfair Competition Law. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. California Milk Producers Advisory Bd. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 871, 878-879.)

4. Government Claims Act:

The demurrers are overruled. As to the Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action, Omnitrans argues Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Claims Act. The Complaint’s allegations in paragraphs 91, 97 and 102 are sufficient for pleading purposes to withstand a demurrer.

5. Worker’s Exclusivity Doctrine:

The demurrers are sustained, with leave to amend. Omnitrans demurrers to Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred under the worker’s compensation exclusivity doctrine. Omnitrans’ demurrer is directed at Plaintiff’s non-FEHA tort claims—intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, training, and retention, and negligent failure to maintain a safe workplace/negligent handling of workplace violence. All of the Complaint’s allegations relate to the operation of Omnitrans’ business and either Plaintiff’s employment (i.e., his termination) or the conditions of his employment which are subject to worker’s compensation exclusivity. (See Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 148, 160)

Motion to Strike:

At the end of the Demurrer, Defendant has inserted a purported “Motion to Strike.” However, this Motion is not properly noticed. Therefore, the Court disregards this Motion, without prejudice.

1 “Leave to amend should be denied where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is

clear, but no liability exists under substantive law.” (Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 431, 436 (emphasis added); Schonfeldt v. State of Calif. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1465 [if no liability as a matter of law, leave to amend should not be granted].)

Summary:

1. Omnitrans’ Request for Judicial Notice is denied.

2. Omnitrans’ demurrers to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action in the Complaint are overruled.

3. Omnitrans’ demurrer to the Ninth Cause of Action is sustained, with leave to amend.

4. Omnitrans’ demurrers to the Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Claims Act are overruled.

5.Omnitrans’ demurrers to the Complaint’s Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action are sustained, with leave to amend on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred under the worker’s compensation exclusivity doctrine.

6. Omnitrans’ demurrer to the Thirteenth Cause of Action is sustained, without leave to amend.

7. Omnitrans’ motion to strike is denied.

8. Court continues TSC set for 6/10/2026 to 9/10/2026

Moving party is directed to give notice of ruling.

3. CASE NUMBER CASE NAME TYPE OF HEARING CIVSB22259070 Peng Liang Gang, et al v Rose Defendant Rose Chang’s Motion Chang, et al to Vacate Judgment Tentative Ruling:

Motion:

The motion is denied. Unless Defendant Rose Chang (aka Hsiu-Lan Chang) is an attorney, she may not bring a motion on behalf of Defendant Hsin-Wen Huang. Moreover, there is no proof of service showing that any other party was served with this Motion. The judicial assistant is directed to give notice of ruling.