Tenpas v. Superior Court CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Jun 5, 2015 No. E063213Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a cause of action under Labor Code section 1102.5 by alleging a reasonable belief that the employer's actions violated federal immigration law. Consequently, the trial court erred in sustaining the defendant's demurrer to that cause of action.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a cause of action under Labor Code section 1102.5 to survive a general demurrer.
Whether a plaintiff must allege a specific statute to state a claim under Labor Code section 1102.5.

Disposition. Petition granted; peremptory writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under this standard, plaintiff has stated a cause of action under Labor Code section 1102.5.”

“Accordingly, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the second cause of action, and we grant the petition.”

Filed 6/5/15 Tenpas v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

CYNTHIA TENPAS,

Petitioner, E063213

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1404069)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Sunshine S. Sykes,

Judge. Petition is granted.

Miller Miller Menthe, Darrel C. Menthe and Adam I. Miller, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Mark H. Meyerhoff and Lee T. Patajo, for Real Party

in Interest.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party

in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of

settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is

therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171,

Tenpas v. Superior Court CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

CYNTHIA TENPAS,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

HOLLENHORST J.

KING J.

AI Brief