CARVALHO vs EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP., et al.

25CV141395: CARVALHO vs EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP., et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Demurrer EDGE BUSINE CRS# 212283058466 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 07/08/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Demurrer filed by EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP. on 12/02/2025 is Sustained with Leave to Amend.

In light of the ruling on the concurrent Motion to Quash, the Demurrer of Defendants Edge Business Services Corp.; Edge Logistics Corp., Eg Ground Management, Inc.; LA Depositions, Inc.; LMDE, LLC; and Nevada Logistics Investment Company, Inc. (“Defendants”) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL STANDARD The general rule is that the plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “All that is required of a plaintiff, as a matter of pleading, even as against a special demurrer, is that his complaint set forth the essential facts of the case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 156-157.) “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v.

Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848, fn. 3 (Mahan), citing Lickiss v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) In addition, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, courts strictly construe a demurrer for uncertainty “because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to Exhibits A through F, which consist of California court records. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, the Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of any of the facts asserted in the matters noticed. (See Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1413 n. 7; Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)

DISCUSSION 25CV141395: CARVALHO vs EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP., et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Demurrer EDGE BUSINE CRS# 212283058466 in Department 520 A complaint must contain “sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief.” (See Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.) The allegations against all six Defendants are made without distinction in that they are “liable for the judgment against OAKLAND SERVICE OF PROCESS INC. Under a theory of successorship liability pursuant to Labor Code § 200.3(a)(2) & (3).” (Complaint, ¶ 43.) Plaintiff also alleges generally that Defendants were “each the agent, servant, employee, partner, and/or joint venture of and w[ere] acting in concert with each of the remaining Defendants” (Id. at ¶ 9) and thus the alter egos of one another. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff asserts that the current allegations are sufficient to set forth successor liability based on the common ownership of the entities by Elisha Gilboa. The Court finds that the current allegations do not contain sufficient facts to support liability on such a theory. (See Hughes v. Western MacArthur Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 951, 956.)

However, the Court cannot determine based on the matters properly before it that there is no possibility that Plaintiff could state facts supporting liability under a successor theory. (See, e.g., Ray v. Alad Corp. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 22, 29-30; Superior Care Facilities v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1025-1027.) This is particularly the case given that Plaintiff has 21 Motions to Compel Further pending, scheduled for August 6, 2026 in a combination of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production of Documents as to the six Defendants prior to the September 16, 2026 initial Case Management Conference. (ROA; Burton Motion to Quash Decl., ¶ 9(a)- (u).)

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the First and sole cause of action for Successorship.

Plaintiff shall serve and file a First Amended Complaint by no later than October 1, 2026.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on July 9, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on July 8, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV141395: CARVALHO vs EDGE BUSINESS SERVICES CORP., et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Demurrer EDGE BUSINE CRS# 212283058466 in Department 520 specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

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.