Christner vs. Warrior Management Company LLC

unconscionable, and California and federal authorities uniformly reiterate the strong public policy in favor of arbitration. (See, e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 339 [holding the FAA reflects the “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration”]; Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686 [nothing “California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration”].)

In sum, Plaintiff shows a modest amount of procedural unconscionability but no substantive unconscionability.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant MBUSA’s motion to compel arbitration.

Defendant MBUSA is the only named defendant. As such, the court also STAYS the entire action pending resolution of the parties’ binding arbitration.

The court VACATES the Case Management Conference scheduled for 10/05/2026.

The court hereby SETS an ADR Review Hearing for December 14, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department W08.

Plaintiff SHALL file and serve a status report no later than 10 court days before the ADR Review Hearing.

Defendant to give notice.

15 Christner vs. Demurrer Warrior Management The court SUSTAINS with 20 days leave to amend, Company LLC Defendants GARRETT WHITE and DANIELLE WHITE (“Moving Defendants”) general demurrer to the fifth and eighth causes of action in the Complaint filed by Plaintiff CAMERON CHRISTNER. Moving Defendants’ demurrer to other causes of action are DISREGARDED for the reasons explained below.

The Complaint contains the following eight causes of action against all defendants, including Moving Defendants:

1. Nonpayment of wages 2. Failure to pay wages 3. Failure to pay overtime and double time wages 4. Waiting time penalties 5. Failure to keep and provide accurate records 6. Failure to provide meal periods 7. Failure to provide rest periods 8. Unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof., § 17200)

However, Moving Defendants purport to generally demur to the following nine causes of action:

1. Failure to pay minimum wages 2. Failure to pay overtime wages 3. Failure to provide meal period 4. Failure to authorize and permit rest periods 5. Failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements 6. Failure to pay wages due upon separation 7. Failure to reimburse necessary business expenses 8. Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.

9. Declaratory relief

(See Not. of Demurrer [ROA 36], filed 6/2/26, pp. 1-2.)

As Plaintiff notes in its opposing papers, the causes of action demurred to are different from those in the Complaint. (Opp’n Br., at p. 2, lines 20-24.) Moving Defendants’ demurrer challenges only two correctly identified causes of action in the Complaint: the fifth cause of action and eighth cause of action.

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.60 provides in relevant part, “A demurrer shall distinctly specify the grounds upon which any of the objections to the complaint . . . are taken. Unless it does so, it may be disregarded.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.60.)

The court therefore disregards the demurrer to the purported first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and ninth causes of action.

5th C/A (failure to furnish itemized wage statements) and 8th C/A (Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200)

The fifth cause of action alleges Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with any itemized wage statements due to their misclassification of Plaintiff as an independent contractor. (Compl., ¶ 72.) The eighth cause of action is derivative, in part, of the fifth cause of action. The Complaint alleges Defendants engaged in unfair competition by failing to, among other things, provide Plaintiff with accurate, itemized statements as required by Labor Code section 226. (See Compl., ¶ 93(f).)

Labor Code section 226(a) requires employers to provide itemized wage statements reflecting nine items of information. Labor Code Section 218 creates a private right of action for violations of section 226. (See Noe v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 316, 339-340 [holding that section 218 establishes a private right of action to enforce Labor Code provisions within the article (§§ 200-244)].)

Labor Code section 588.1(a) provides for personal liability against any “other person acting on behalf of an employer.” Specifically, section 588.1(a) provides,

“Any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer, who violates, or causes to be violated, any provision regulating minimum wages or hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, or 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 violation.”

Subdivision (b) clarifies that

“the term ‘other person acting on behalf of an employer’ is limited to a natural person who is an owner, director, officer, or managing agent of the employer, and the term ‘managing agent’ has the same meaning as in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code.”

As such, the individual sought to be liable must have been “personally involved” in the alleged violations or have had “sufficient participation in the activities of the employer” such that the individual contributed to the alleged violations. (See Usher v. White (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 883 [affirming grant of summary judgment where the undisputed facts showed the individual owner not participate in the decision of the business to classify plaintiffs as independent contractors, which classification was the basis of plaintiff’s claims].)

Here, the Complaint alleges insufficient facts (as opposed to conclusory allegations) to support personal liability against Moving Defendants Garrett White and Danielle White. The Complaint merely identifies the two defendants in a couple of paragraphs (Compl., ¶¶ 1 and 10) and then requests relief against them (Compl., p. 15 [Prayer for Relief].) The paragraphs in the Complaint merely alleges in conclusory fashion that the individual defendants are and were at all relevant times, officers, owners, directors, and/or managing agents of Defendants and are personally liable for violations of Labor Code. (Compl., ¶ 10.) “Bare conclusions devoid of any supporting facts ... are insufficient to withstand demurrer.” (Schmid v. City and County of San Francisco (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 470, 481.)

As such, the court SUSTAINS Moving Defendants’ demurrer to the fifth and eighth causes of action, with 20 days leave to amend.

Moving Defendants to give notice.

16 J-CM Services, Inc. Demurrer vs. Duran The court SUSTAINS in part, and OVERRULES in part, the demurrer filed by Defendants ALL INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. (“AIES”), RUBEN DURAN and CHRISTOPHER WERNICKE to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff J-CM SERVICES, INC. The court GRANTS 15 days leave to amend to address the deficiencies noted below.

21