THE PARTY STAFF, INC. VS. QWICK, INC. ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, August 26, 2025, Line 7 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. DEFENDANTS ARAMARK CORP., GUCKENHEIMER ENTERPRISES, INC., AND GUCKENHEIMER HOLDINGS, LLC's DEMURRER to 2ND Amended COMPLAINT.

Defendants' (ARAMARK CORP., GUCKENHEIMER ENTERPRISES, INC., GUCKENHEIMER HOLDINGS, LLC) demurrer to Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") is sustained without leave to amend. (CCP 430.10(e).)

The issue under section CCP 430.10(e) is, taking the facts properly pleaded and properly noticed as true, does the challenged cause of action necessarily fail to state a claim for relief. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In assessing whether the complaint states a cause of action, the court accepts all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Minton v. Dignity Health (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1161.) The court liberally construes the complaint per CCP 452.

The court overrules the demurrer to the first cause of action for a violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200 (UCL). Plaintiff adequately alleges facts (such as that the moving defendants own or operate equipment used by workers, select the locations where workers work, train their workers, etc. (SAC para. 38)) that support its joint employer theory. Although the facts are alleged in broad and generalized terms, they are ultimate facts and not conclusions of law and the court is required to accept them as true.

The court rejects Plaintiff's alternate theory that the moving defendants are liable for the platform defendants' misclassification of its workers as "advisors" and/or "joint employers." (SAC, pars. 2, 32-38.) Labor Code section 2753 provides for joint and several liability where one "knowingly advises an employer to treat an individual as an independent contractor to avoid employee status." The legislative history indicates that the statute targets the use of consultants. (Noe v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 316, 329-330.) Plaintiff's allegations about use and omission of a "W-2 badge" on a posting do not constitute knowing advisement within the meaning of the statute.

However, a demurrer lies only as to an entire cause of action. Because Plaintiff's joint employer theory is sufficiently pled to state a claim, the demurrer is overruled as to the UCL cause of action.

Cause of action two for violation of Business & Professions Code section 17000 (UPA) fails to state a cause of action. The SAC does not add sufficient ultimate facts alleging that movants "solicit[ed]" a violation of the law within Business & Professions Code section 17047 or that movants jointly participated or colluded with the platform defendants to create liability under Business & Professions Code section 17048. Plaintiff also fails to plead facts showing that movants were "sell[ing]" a product in violation of sections 17043 and 17044. The SAC shows that movants at most "provide[d]" staffing services. (SAC, par. 49.) Plaintiff offers no additional facts it could plead on amendment; the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. [End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. =(301/CVA) | |