Bohanan v. LWP Claims Solutions, Inc.

Defendants also argue that a breach of contract or bailment cause of action does not support a punitive damages request absent an independent tort. Here, subsequent to the above ruling on the Defendants’ demurrer, the remaining causes of action in the FAC are for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of bailment contract. None of these support an award of punitive damages.

IV.

Conclusion

Defendants’ demurrer to the fifth cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Sixth Cause of Action for Misrepresentation, Seventh Cause of Action for Concealment, Eighth Cause of Action for Violation of CLRA, Ninth Cause of Action for Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code section 17500 et seq., and Tenth Cause of Action for Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq., is sustained with leave to amend. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action for Breach of Contract and for nonjoinder of a necessary party is overruled.

Conditioned upon Defendants paying an additional filing fee of $60, Defendants’ motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED with leave to amend. Defendants’ motion to strike is otherwise DENIED. Defendants’ counsel is directed to submit a written order to this court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

5. 25CV08885, Vargas Flaherty v. Kerston

Plaintiffs Casilda Vargas Flaherty and Christopher Flaherty (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order advancing and specially setting the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Sever the defaulted Defendants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 579, which is presently set for October 14, 2026. The motion sought to have the hearing continued to the now-past date of August 12, 2026, to be heard concurrently with Defendant’s motion to expunge the lis pendens.

The motion is made on the grounds that the only substantial asset from which any judgment in this action can be satisfied, i.e., the real property owned by defaulted defendant CBK, LLC, is actively listed for sale by defendant Peter Kerston such that if defendant Kerston’s motion to expunge the lis pendens is granted, a subsequent sale of the real property would defeat Plaintiffs’ ability to recover against the defendants in this action. Plaintiffs argue the defendant Kerston has a documented history of not satisfying outstanding judgments unless a lien is placed on his property, as presented in Plaintiffs’ application for leave to record the lis pendens granted by this court on April 15, 2026.

Even if Plaintiffs had shown good cause to advance the hearing, this court does not have any available hearing dates before the motion is set to be heard on October 14, 2026. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. This court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the court.

6. 26CV00824, Bohanan v. LWP Claims Solutions, Inc.

Defendant LWP Claims Solutions Inc. (“Defendant”) demurs to the first through seventh causes of action in the complaint filed by Plaintiff Lucas Bohanan (“Plaintiff”) on the grounds that each fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

I. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges on February 26, 2023, he suffered an injury during work as a Firefighter Engineer and paramedic for the Santa Rosa Fire Department. He states that while he was assisting with lifting 11 an unconscious patient and maneuvering the patient in a narrow hallway and down two or three steps to a gurney outside, he started feeling right-sided low back pain and right leg pain, numbness, and tingling. He left work due to the injury.

Plaintiff alleges that after the injury, he was subjected to a campaign of harassment. Plaintiff alleges the harassment campaign was ordered by Defendant at the direction of Nick Vinh, the City of Santa Rosa’s Risk Manager. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure to Engage in Interactive Process; (3) Failure to Accommodate; (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination; (5) Retaliation; (6) Aiding and Abetting; and (7) Retaliation (CFRA).

II. FEHA Causes of Action - Employment Relationship

Defendant argues that the first through fifth and seventh causes of action alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint require an employer relationship and the allegations establish that Defendant was not Plaintiff’s employer. The complaint alleges that from April 9, 2018, to January 21, 2024, Plaintiff worked as a Firefighter Engineer for Santa Rosa Fire Department (“SRFD”). (Complaint, ¶31.) He suffered an injury on the job with SRFD. (Id., ¶33.) Defendant is alleged to have acted as the third-party administrator for the City of Santa Rosa’s workers’ compensation claims, including Plaintiff’s. (Id., ¶35.)

Plaintiff’s first through seventh causes of action allege violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”). The FEHA and CRFA predicates potential “liability on the status of the defendant as an employer.” (Vernon v. State of California (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 114, 123 [citing Gov. Code section 12926]; Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 408.) Here, the complaint alleges that SRFD was Plaintiff’s employer. Defendant was merely an administrator for the City of Santa Rosa.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant was SRFD’s agent carrying on FEHA-related activities. An employer's business-entity agents can be held directly liable under the FEHA for employment discrimination in appropriate circumstances when the business-entity agent has at least five employees and carries out FEHA-regulated activities on behalf of an employer. (Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group (2023) 15 Cal.5th 268, 273.)

In its motion, Defendant argues that the types of activities it carried on were not FEHAregulated activities. It lists the following: authorizing surveillance; making worker’s compensation benefit decisions; coordinating litigation strategy and selecting defense counsel; and communicating and managing information regarding Plaintiff’s work restrictions. Defendant does not cite authority that the tasks attributed to Defendant do not qualify as FEHA-regulated. Therefore, it has not met its burden on this issue.

III. Sixth Cause of Action – Aiding and Abetting (Cal. Gov. Code section 12940(i)

Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action alleges the City of Santa Rosa engaged in unlawful employment practices forbidden by the FEHA, including disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation. He alleges Defendant, with knowledge of the City of Santa Rosa's unlawful employment practices, knowingly and substantially assisted the City in committing these violations of the FEHA.

Plaintiff lists specific actions including authorizing surveillance, exercising decision-making authority over Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation benefits; coordinating litigation strategy; communicating and managing information regarding Plaintiff’s work restrictions and ability to return to work in a manner that failed to facilitate the interactive process; and participating in employment-related decisions without engaging in good faith efforts to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability. The facts allege that Defendant provided assistance or encouragement to the City.

IV.

Conclusion

The demurrer is OVERRULED. 12

Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to this court in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

7. 26CV01627, Mason v. Total Lenders Solutions, Inc.

This matter is on calendar for the demurrer of Defendants Total Lenders Solutions and Toro Loan Servicing, Inc. to the complaint filed by Plaintiff Paul Mason. On August 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED as MOOT.

13