MOHAMMAD M KANNA VS. VINDULA RAGHBIR, ET AL

5/14/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 23 of 26

2:00 PM LINE: 10 25-CIV-04466 MOHAMMAD M KANNA VS. VINDULA RAGHBIR, ET AL

MOHAMMAD M KANNA ANDREA DIAZ VINDULA RAGHBIR STEPHEN E BAUMANN

DEFENDANT HARDEV GURU'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Demurrer of Defendant Hardev Guru (“Defendant”) to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Mohammad M. Kanna (“Plaintiff”) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of Plaintiff’s former employment with Defendant Gate Group, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained an injury at work and reported it to Defendant, among others. (FAC, ¶ 21.) While Plaintiff remained off work due to his injuries, he alleges that Defendant, along with Defendants Vindula Raghbir and David Potts and nonparty Alice Warrick, harassed him by excessively contacting him while he was on leave and pressuring him to return to work or perform job duties, even though he was on leave and/or required additional leave as an accommodation. (FAC, ¶ 41.)

The FAC alleges the first cause of action for disability harassment against Defendant, to which Defendant demurs.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY HARASSMENT

To establish a cause of action for harassment under FEHA, a plaintiff must show: (1) the plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome conduct; (2) the conduct was based on the plaintiff’s membership in an enumerated class; and (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. (Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (2024) 16 Cal.5th 611, 627, citing Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 279.)

Defendant’s argument that he cannot be held liable for harassment because he did not supervise Plaintiff is unpersuasive. An employee may be held personally liable for harassment prohibited by Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j). (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(3).)

However, Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to support a harassment claim against Defendant. Conduct necessary for the management of the employer’s business or for the performance of a supervisory employee’s job generally does not constitute harassment. (Martin v. Board of Trustees of The California State University (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 149, 172–173, citing Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860, 879.) In Thompson, the court explained that common personnel-management actions, such as hiring and firing, job assignments, office or workstation assignments, promotion or demotion, performance evaluations, the provision of support, the assignment or nonassignment of supervisory functions, meeting-attendance decisions, layoff decisions, and similar actions, do not fall within the meaning of harassment. (Thompson, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 879.)

5/14/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 24 of 26

Here, the alleged harassment is that Defendant excessively contacted Plaintiff and pressured him to return to work. (FAC, ¶ 41.) However, the FAC acknowledges that Plaintiff was off work on leave. The FAC does not allege specific facts regarding the contacts Defendant allegedly made, what Defendant communicated, how often the contacts occurred, or the manner in which Defendant allegedly pressured Plaintiff. These allegations are therefore insufficient to show that Defendant’s conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and create an abusive working environment.

The Demurrer to the first cause of action for disability harassment is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND based on failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff has 10 days from service of written notice of entry of order by Defendant to file and serve a Second Amended Complaint.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and shall provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The Court alerts the parties to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), amended effective January 1, 2024, regarding the wording of proposed orders.