Robert Half Inc. vs. Beacon Hill Solutions Group, LLC

instead, relies on the arguments put forth in the accompanying demurrer, directed towards the “Second Cause of Action.” (See Motion: 4:21-27.) As noted by Plaintiff, “it is improper for a court to strike a whole cause of action of a pleading under Code of Civil Procedure section 436,” and consequently, this portion of the motion to strike is DENIED. (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281.)

Additionally, Defendant requests the Court strike the prayer “[f]or prejudgment interest as permitted by law.” (See ¶4 of Prayer.)

Defendant challenges Plaintiff’s ability to recover prejudgment interest, on the basis Plaintiff’s damages do not consist of a sum certain. In making this argument, Defendant cites Civil Code section 3287; however, as noted by Plaintiff (and conceded by Defendant within the Reply), prejudgment interest remains a possibility pursuant to Civil Code section 3291.

“While prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287 is an element of damages that must be claimed prior to entry of judgment [citation], prejudgment interest under section 3291 is not an element of damages and must be claimed by memorandum of costs under section 1034.” (Jones v. John Crane, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 990, 1012.)

As the identified request for prejudgment interest is not an item of damage but is merely an incident to the claim which may be awarded after entry of judgment, there was no requirement that this item be pled at all, and no need for striking it. (See Snatchko v. Westfield LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 469, 497 [discussing analogous situation with respect to attorney’s fees.])

Thus, the Motion to Strike is DENIED, in whole.

Defendant shall file its Answer within 10 days of this order.

Case Management Conference is continued to December 03, 2026, at 09:00 am in Department C10.

Moving party shall give notice.

3 Robert Half Inc. vs. Motion 1. Demurrer Beacon Hill Solutions Group, Defendants Beach Hill Solutions Group, LLC, Scott Fowler, Josh Liem, LLC Vivian Hung, Patrick Yajko, Heather White, Janet Acevedo, Abraham Klatt, Sheena Neal, and Shahed Modiri demur to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) of Plaintiff Robert Half, Inc. For the following reasons, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Standard on Demurrer

In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A

demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations. (Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-1405.) Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer. (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.) A demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint; a court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice. (Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 n.7.)

Although courts should take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints (see Code Civ. Proc., § 452), it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what plaintiff is complaining, and what remedies are being sought. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413.) Bare conclusions of law devoid of any facts are insufficient to withstand demurrer. (Schmid v. City and County of San Francisco (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 470, 481; see Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10(a).)

CUTSA Displacement

Defendants argue the third – eighth causes of action are displaced by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA). Like the interference claims in Guild Mortgage, the gravamen of Plaintiff’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action here is a coordinated scheme between Defendant Beacon Hill and Plaintiff’s thenemployees, including Defendant Neal, to coopt the work of Plaintiff’s employees for Beacon Hill’s benefit, raid branch offices of their employees, and create a coordinated effort to leave Plaintiff without the ability to service its contracts and clients. (See FAC ¶¶ 94-96, 99-103, 108, 198, 116- 119, 121-139.) The court finds the gravamen of these claims is not the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and, therefore, the claims are not displaced by CUTSA.

Alleged Existence of Valid Contract

Defendants demur to the first, second, and fourth causes of action, arguing the employment agreements between Plaintiff and the Individual Defendants are void ab initio because the contracts include unenforceable restraints on trade that permeate the agreement. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600(a) [providing “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void”].)

The first cause of action alleges the Individual Defendants breached paragraphs 11 and 4 of their employment agreements with Plaintiff by, among other things, soliciting other employees to leave Plaintiff’s employment and not devoting their best efforts while employed by Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s benefit. (FAC ¶ 81.) The second cause of action alleges the 7

Individual Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in their employment contracts by resigning en masse with no notice and, while employed by Plaintiff, using their work time to prepare to compete with Plaintiff. (See FAC ¶ 87.) The fourth cause of action alleges Defendants Beacon Hill and Klatt induced the Individual Defendants described above. (FAC ¶ 100.)

The claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, and intentional interference with contract each require Plaintiff to establish the existence of a valid contract. (See Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811 [identifying elements for breach of contract claim]; Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 36 [identifying elements of a claim for breach of implied covenant]; Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 1130, 1141 [identifying elements of a tortious interference claim].)

Here, the Complaint alleges breaches of provisions and covenants that do not restrain the Individual Defendants from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business. (See Compl. ¶¶ 81, 87, 100, Ex. A at internal ¶¶ 4, 11.) The court notes that while the Employment Contract includes a form covenant not to compete (see Compl., Ex. A at ¶ 9), that covenant by its terms does not apply in California. Moreover, the contracts include a severability clause that provides the court authority to sever all unenforceable provisions. (Compl., Ex. A at ¶ 19 [providing “[i]f any provision is found by any court . . . to be unreasonable and invalid, that determination shall not affect the enforceability of the other provisions”].)

Third Cause of Action (Duty of Loyalty)

Lastly, Defendants argue the third cause of action fails to state a cause of action because a claim for “breach of duty of loyalty” is not a freestanding claim outside breach of fiduciary duty.

Defendants rely on only non-binding federal authority to argue that no duty of loyalty exists for employees outside of fiduciary duties. California authority, however, is clear: “[I]t is the law in this state that ‘an employee, while employed, owes undivided loyalty to his employer.’” (Guild Mortgage Co. LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage LLC (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 885, 892 [citing among others Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400 and Lab. Code, § 2863].)

For the foregoing reasons, the court will OVERRULE Defendants’ demurrer to the FAC.

No later than 10 days after service of the notice of ruling, Defendants shall file and serve an answer to the Complaint. (Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1320(g).)

Plaintiff to give notice.

Motion 2. Motion to Strike. 8

Defendants Beach Hill Solutions Group, LLC, Scott Fowler, Josh Liem, Vivian Hung, Patrick Yajko, Heather White, Janet Acevedo, Abraham Klatt, Sheena Neal, and Shahed Modiri move to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) of Plaintiff Robert Half, Inc. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

Standard on Motions to Strike

California Civil Procedure Code section 436 permits a court to strike “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or “all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” “Irrelevant matter” means an immaterial allegation in a pleading (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10(c)), and includes an allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense, an allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense, and a demand for judgment requesting relief that is not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross- complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10(b).) A motion to strike is not “a procedural ‘line item veto’ for the civil defendant.” (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.)

Irrelevant and Immaterial Allegations

Defendants move to strike various allegations in paragraphs 5, 44(a)-(h), 45 of the FAC are irrelevant and immaterial. In doing so, Defendants improperly attempt to exercise a procedural line-item veto. For this reason, the court will DENY the motion to strike portions of the FAC.

No later than 10 days after service of the notice of ruling, Defendants shall file and serve an answer to the Complaint.

Case Management Conference is continued to December 03, 2026, at 09:00 am in Department C10.

Plaintiff to give notice.

4 Martin vs. FCA US, Defendant FCA US, LLC moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the LLC. first, second, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Virginia Martin. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Should Plaintiff wish to file a Second Amended Complaint consistent with this ruling, she shall do so by September 10, 2026.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of 5 Complaints filed in other lawsuits is denied. The Court need not take judicial notice of irrelevant documents and pleadings, including those that are ultimately irrelevant to the resolution of a particular dispute (Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Medical

9