Ontiveros v. Hronis CA5

Filed 9/3/24 Ontiveros v. Hronis CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LEOPOLDO ONTIVEROS, F087044 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. BCV-23-100448) v.

HRONIS, INC., et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Bernard C. Barmann, Jr., Judge. Yoon Law, Kenneth H. Yoon and Stephanie E. Yasuda for Plaintiff and Appellant. Fisher & Phillips, Alden J. Park and Rebecca Hause-Schultz for Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Leopoldo Ontiveros (Ontiveros) filed a class action complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated farmworkers, claiming respondents Hronis, Inc. (Hronis) and Grapeco Farm Management, Inc. (Grapeco) (collectively, respondents) had failed to provide meal and rest breaks and to pay minimum and overtime wages as required by law. The trial court granted respondents’ demurrers, finding Ontiveros had failed to state a claim because he had not identified the “labor contractor” that actually employed him in his pleadings. As Ontiveros points out in his appeal, both the original complaint and the first amended complaint (FAC) alleged he was employed directly by respondents,1 and only alleged employment through a labor contractor as an alternative theory of agency liability. Since a demurrer does not lie to only a portion or a particular theory of a cause of action, but instead must lie to the entire cause of action, we reverse. BACKGROUND Ontiveros2 filed a putative class action complaint in Kern County Superior Court on February 14, 2023. He alleged violations of various provisions of the Labor Code, and noted he brought the suit “on behalf of [himself] and the Class of other similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants.” (Italics added.) The complaint alleges respondents disregarded the “rights of all employees.” It also alleges Ontiveros

1 While respondents allege Ontiveros made no claims against Grapeco, a review of the FAC in this case shows Ontiveros alleged he was directly employed by both respondents. At the pleading stage of the case, we are bound to accept the factual allegations as true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591; 290 Division (EAT), LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 439, 452.) Therefore, we must accept Ontiveros’s allegation that he was a direct employee of Grapeco. Accordingly, the analysis of the arguments made here is the same in relation to both respondents.