Pactor Corp. v. Manpower Inc. of Sacramento

CONLEY, P. J.

Aside from what we later hold to be a futile attempt by respondents to attack an earlier and unconnected ruling, this case exclusively involves a judgment of dismissal after the sustaining of special and general demurrers to the second amended complaint without leave to amend.

There are two general issues to be determined:

1) Are the rulings sustaining the demurrers correct? and

2) If so, was it error to refuse to grant plaintiffs leave to amend ?

It is our conclusion that the trial court properly sustained the demurrers, but we also hold, with some degree of hesitation, that the court erred in not permitting the filing of an amended complaint. Our hesitation hinges on the fact that counsel for plaintiffs do not seem to have corrected obvious errors shown by the earlier demurrers but have perpetuated early mistakes in their later pleadings; also, that they did not think the matter important enough to cross the river to Woodland from their Sacramento offices when the demurrers were argued. Plaintiffs cannot play fast and loose with the court. Judicial patience can legitimately wear thin.

Generally speaking, the litigation tests whether or not an organization, or organizations, in the business of furnishing temporary and permanent help to one or more commercial companies are responsible in damages to such other organizations if they supply for the vacant position a man with a criminal record who, thereafter, steals or embezzles from the person to whom his services are furnished. The Pactor Corporation and Pactor Sales Corporation are companies engaged in the business of manufacturing heavy, medium, and light compaction and leveling equipment. The defendant Manpower Inc. of Sacramento is a corporation organized under California law and engaged in the business of furnishing to commercial enterprises and others, for a consideration, temporary

[1034]

and prospective employees. The other respondent, Manpower Franchises Inc., is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in California, and principally engaged in organizing and letting contracts and agreements to local entities or persons for the purpose of furnishing personnel. It is alleged in their three successive complaints that the “plaintiff” applied to the defendants for the furnishing of an employee. There are two plaintiffs and this error of using the singular word “plaintiff” is frequently employed in the pleadings to such an extent that it might well lead to a conclusion that counsel were deliberately doing it for the purpose of disguising their actual allegations. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants did, in fact, refer one Arthur R. Crowder to “plaintiff” to fill the job applied for, which involved “keeping and maintaining minutes, records, handling funds and cash in the course of plaintiff’s business,” and that the defendants failed to inform plaintiff that Crowder had, in fact, committed thefts, embezzlements, and the execution of fraudulent checks, and, in fact, that he had been convicted of numerous felonies. It is further claimed in the successive pleadings that Crowder stole, embezzled or took for his own use the approximate sum of $6,000 of “plaintiff’s” (again the singular) funds, and that “plaintiff” was further damaged in the sum of $250,000 because of the consequent loss of standing among creditors and business organizations.