Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 05/27/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Defendant Diane Waters’ (Doe 1) (“Defendant”) demurrer to Plaintiffs Peter M. Sailors, Damien Sailors, and Tim Hurst’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Complaint is OVERRULED.

Background

This is a wage and hour lawsuit in which Plaintiffs allege they were deliberately misclassified as independent contractors. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs filed the Complaint against Defendant Sarah Waters and Does 1-100 on April 23, 2023. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part:

. . . This action is for restitution of unpaid wages and unlawful deductions from their pay and to prosecute a private enforcement action to collect civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act ('PAGA'), against Defendant Sarah Waters and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive (hereafter, collectively referred to as 'Defendants or Waters Defendants'), under the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission's ('IWC') Wage Orders, the California Business and Professions Code (§§ 17200 et seq.), and other statues and regulations applicable to non-exempt employees in the State of California.

2. Plaintiffs allege that at all times mentioned, Defendant, SARAH WATERS is a bail agent and she has her principal place of business at 300 G. Street in Sacramento, California.

3. That Defendants and Does I through 100, inclusive, are sued herein under fictious names because their true names, involvement, and capacities, where individual, associate, corporate, or governmental, are not now known to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that upon such information and belief alleges that each of the said DOE defendants are . . . responsible in some manner for the events herein alleged . . . . Plaintiffs are uncertain as to the manner or function of said defendants . . . .

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 05/27/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at all times relevant herein mentioned, defendants, including those sued by fictious names, were acting as the agents, servants, employees and/or representatives and acted with the knowledge, consent, approval, and/or ratification of their co-defendants. ....

9. Defendant Sarah Waters is a resident of Sacramento County, California and has been the employer for said Plaintiffs at all times relevant and maintained her business at 900 G. Street in Sacramento, California. Sarah Waters has been a bail agent since May 4 2016, License No. 1K88090.

10. The Waters Defendants, each operating as American Bail Bonds are bail agents that issue bonds so that accused defendants may remain free from incarceration during criminal case management and trial.

(Compl. ¶¶ 1-10 [emphasis added].) The remaining allegations under the Complaint’s “Statement of Facts” are alleged against the “Waters Defendants” or “Defendants,” which the Complaint defines to include Doe 1. For example, paragraph 24 alleges that “The Waters defendants control the means, manner, and methods by which the Plaintiffs perform their work. Nevertheless, defendants have willfully misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors, in order to minimize costs and unduly maximize profits at the expense of their primary workforce.” (Compl. ¶ 24.)

The Complaint alleges 7 causes of action. Plaintiffs allege all seven against “all Defendants and DOES 1 through 100.” (See Complaint, generally.)

On December 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Doe Amendment to the Complaint naming Diane Waters as Doe No.

1.

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, raising issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 422.10, 589.) A demurrer may only challenge defects on the face of the complaint or from matters that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) However, the face of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 05/27/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

the complaint includes facts contained in exhibits attached to the complaint. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) A demurrer can be utilized where a complaint itself is incomplete or discloses some defense that would bar recovery. (Guardian North Bay, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 963, 971-972.)

In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a general demurrer, courts treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. Matters which may be judicially noticed may also be considered. The complaint is to be given a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Farmers v. Zerin (1997) 53 CaI.App.4th 445, 451.) Consideration of extrinsic evidence or facts asserted in the memorandum supporting or opposing the demurrer is improper. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief, we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.) Still, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the facts pleaded are sufficient to establish every element of the cause of action. (See, e.g., Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1031; Sui v. Price (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 933, 938.) The allegations must be factual and specific, not vague or conclusionary. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians’ Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43-44.)

A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) Finally, a demurrer may only be sustained where it disposes of an entire cause of action. (See, e.g., Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.)

Discussion

Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that it is uncertain under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f). Defendant argues that the “Doe Amendment has no indication whatsoever what [she] is alleged to have done, and similarly, the Complaint does not specify what ‘Doe Number 1’ did.” (Mem. of P.&A. ISO Demurrer 1:6-8, 2:10-12.) Accordingly, Defendant argues that “it is simply impossible for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 05/27/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

[her] to ascertain what exactly the claims are that are being made against her.” (Id. at 2:13-14.)

Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer,[1] rejoining it should be overruled because “[e]ach cause of action alleges facts and circumstances applicable to DOE No. 1 Diane Waters.” (Opp’n 3:5-6.)

A defendant may demurer to a complaint on the grounds that the complaint is uncertain.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) As used in the statute, “uncertain” “includes ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Ibid.)

“[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

For example, “[a] demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label parties and claims render the complaint so confusing that the defendant cannot tell to what defendant is supposed to respond to.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024 Update) ¶ 7:86.4 [citing Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 fn. 2].) “However, under our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend.” (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp., supra, at p. 139 fn. 2.)

Here, the Court finds that the Complaint, as amended by the Doe Amendment, sufficiently apprises Defendant of the claims being alleged against her. As discussed above, the entirety of the “Statement of Facts” alleged in the Complaint are alleged against Defendants and/or the Waters Defendants, which expressly include Doe 1, and each of the causes of action is alleged against all Defendants. Accordingly, Defendant can determine how to respond. In essence, all of the allegations Plaintiffs make against Defendant Sarah Waters are also being made against Defendant as Doe 1.

For the stated reasons, Defendant’s demurrer is overruled.

Defendant shall file and serve her answer to the Complaint no later than June 6, 2025.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337305-CU-WT-GDS: Peter M. Sailors vs. Sarah Waters 05/27/2025 Hearing on Demurrer in Department 53

[1] The Court, in its discretion, considers Plaintiffs’ opposition, which was filed 1 day late. Defendant filed a timely reply brief and has not argued that she was prejudiced from the delay.