DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25621259·sf·Civil·Unfair Competition
Hearing 12 months agoThe moving defendants challenge plaintiff the Party Staff's standing... The Party Staff alleges that... it has lost the moving defendants' business as a consumer of its staffing service... This is an injury in fact... and on its face is sufficient allegation of standing.

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

DEFENDANTS ARAMARK CORP., GUCKENHEIMER ENTERPRISES, INC., AND GUCKENHEIMER HOLDINGS, LLC'S DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2025
Department
301
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffTHE PARTY STAFF, INC.
DefendantQWICK, INC.
DefendantARAMARK CORP.
DefendantGUCKENHEIMER ENTERPRISES, INC.
DefendantGUCKENHEIMER HOLDINGS, LLC

Ruling

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

The moving defendants challenge plaintiff the Party Staff's standing. "[S]tanding to sue under the statute, as defined by Business and Professions Code section 17204, is confined to any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of unfair competition." (Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1554 [citation simplified].) The Party Staff alleges that, as a result of the moving defendants' actions as a joint employer with the other defendants, who engage in misclassification, it has lost the moving defendants' business as a consumer of its staffing service. (SAC para. 34.) This is an injury in fact as a result of the practices challenged in the complaint and on its face is sufficient allegation of standing.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address.

[End of part 2 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. =(301/CVA) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share