MERMELSTEIN vs DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV119673: MERMELSTEIN vs DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer.; filed by Oakland Housing Authority (Defendant) CRS# A-119673-003 in Department 520 Tentative Ruling - 06/03/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson The Demurrer filed by Oakland Housing Authority on 12/05/2025 is Sustained without Leave to Amend. The Demurrer of Defendant Oakland Housing Authority (“Defendant”) to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To state a cause of action for aiding and abetting under FEHA, a plaintiff must plead (1) the existence of an underlying FEHA violation; (2) that the defendant knew of the conduct constituting the violation; and (3) that the defendant provided substantial assistance or encouragement to the underlying violation. (Fiol v.

Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1325-1326.) As a matter of law, an employer cannot aid and abet its own alleged discriminatory conduct. FEHA imposes liability under § 12940(i) only on individuals who, while acting outside the role of the employer, substantially assist, encourage, or contribute to the commission of a FEHA violation by another. (Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1164.) Here, the Oakland Housing Authority is the only defendant and is alleged to be the direct actor in the purported FEHA violations.

Defendant cannot aid and abet in its own violations. It cannot simultaneously be the primary actor and the aider and abettor. As Plaintiff Daniel Mermelstein has not made any arguments as to how he could cure this defect, the Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on June 4, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on June 3, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or self- represented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV119673: MERMELSTEIN vs DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Demurrer.; filed by Oakland Housing Authority (Defendant) CRS# A-119673-003 in Department 520 The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.