Jesus Alonzo Valencia, et al. v. Eliora Arille Shy, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 510) August 25, 2026 DEPARTMENT 510 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Please notify Department 510 via email at SMCDEPT510@lacourt.ca.gov and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

11 - Jesus Alonzo Valencia, et al. v. Eliora Arille Shy, et al. Defendant Barry Shy's Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint Defendant Barry Shy demurs to Plaintiffs' second amended complaint ("SAC") that brings seven causes of action for Labor Code violations and one unfair competition law violation claim.

Evidentiary Objections Plaintiffs make 4 objections to the evidence submitted by Defendant. All objections are sustained.

Relation Back Plaintiffs initiated this action against Defendant Eliora Shy on March 6, 2024. Plaintiffs allege that they worked for Defendant Eliora Shy up until March and April 2022. During their employment, Plaintiffs allege Defendant committed various Labor Code violations, all of which have a one- to three-year statute of limitations period. On October 20, 2025, Plaintiffs added Barry Shy as a Defendant to their operative second amended complaint. Here, Defendant Barry Shy argues that Plaintiffs' causes of action against him are time-barred because the relation-back doctrine does not apply.

"The fictitious name statute (Code Civ.Proc., Sec. 474) enables a plaintiff who is ignorant of the identity of a defendant to file a complaint before the action is barred by the statute of limitations. . . . Under section 474 a plaintiff is considered to be 'ignorant of the name' of a defendant not only when he lacks knowledge of the defendant's identity but also when he knew the identity of the person but was ignorant of the facts giving him a cause of action against the person." (Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 376.)

Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred because Plaintiffs knew of his identity at the time the initial complaint was filed. For support, Defendant points to deposition testimony from various Plaintiffs in the case. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' various admissions during their depositions show that they had knowledge of his identity when the complaint was filed and, therefore, the claims against him do not relate back to the date the original complaint was filed.

The Court declines to consider Defendant's extrinsic evident on demurrer. The Court is limited to the contents of the complaint and any judicially noticeable documents when ruling on a demurrer. General demurrers can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable; evidence or extrinsic matters are not considered. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 430.30, 430.70; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The truth of the contents of the deposition testimony are not subject to judicial notice and the Court cannot rely on them to resolve disputed factual issues regarding Plaintiffs' knowledge.

When only viewing the pleading itself, the SAC does not show that the statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant. A demurrer should be sustained where "the complaint shows on its face that the statute [of limitations] bars the action." (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) The SAC alleges that Barry Shy "was an individual who controlled Plaintiffs' wages, hours, and working conditions." (SAC, P. 2.) It alleges "Plaintiffs did not receive any wages for hours worked at the personal residence of B-SHY from B-SHY but received all compensation from HR Management, LLC." (Id., P. 4.) The face of the SAC does not demonstrate that Plaintiffs had knowledge of Barry's identity at the time the complaint was filed, which would bar their claims.

Disposition

Defendant Barry Shy's demurrer is overruled. Defendant Barry Shy is ordered to file his responsive pleading within 21 days.

Case Number: 24STCV25469 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: 510 No. 9 - Francisca Esmeralda Medina, et al. v. Citiguard, Inc., et al. Cross-Complainant Primestor Development, LLC's Motion to Sever Cross-Complaint Cros-Complainant Primestor Development, LLC moves to sever proceedings on its first amended cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Citiguard, Inc. from the trial on Plaintiff's underlying complaint. Primestor filed its operative first amended cross-complaint against Citiguard on May 21, 2026, alleging causes of action for (1) indemnity; (2) contribution; (3) apportionment; (4) declaratory relief; (5) express indemnity; (6) breach of contract; and (7) declaratory relief - duty to indemnify.

Primestor argues that separately trying its cross-complaint after the resolution of Plaintiff's complaint would moot or significantly narrow the issues to be tried in any separate proceeding on the cross-complaint.

The Court has two concerns with the proposal. First, it appears to the Court that this motion is premature. When this motion was initially filed, trial was set for September 28, 2026. Now, trial has been continued to May 3, 2027. Additional discovery and motion practice could narrow or eliminate the premise for the motion.

Second, while the Court understands the benefit of severing Primestor's equitable claims for later resolution, the Court does not see any benefit of severing Primestor's legal claim for breach of contract from the trial on Plaintiff's complaint. Severing or bifurcating trials must "preserv[e] the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this