Plata v. Key Essential

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR August 27, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

Plata v.Key Essential

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

This is a labor dispute case. On April 22, 2026, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer, asserting

that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to support a PAGA cause of action and is

uncertain. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 14, 2026, and Defendant filed a reply on August

20, 2026.

1. Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of the following documents:

1. Exhibit 1 – Plaintiff’s initial PAGA Notice, dated December 12, 2024;

2. Exhibit 2 – Letter from the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), dated

February 13, 2025;

3. Exhibit 3 – Plaintiff’s amended PAGA Notice, dated March 28, 2025;

4. Exhibit 4 – Complaint filed in this action;

5. Exhibit 5 – Complaint filed in Anthony Vallacqua v. Quality Transformer & Electronics,

Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV468866; and

6. Exhibit 6 – Amended PAGA Notice filed in Vallacqua v. Quality Transformer &

Electronics.

Plaintiff objects to judicial notice of Exhibits 2, 5, and 6 on the grounds of irrelevance and

hearsay.

The Court may take judicial notice of the “[o]fficial acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial

departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.” (Evid. Code, § 452,

subd. (c).) Defendant, however, cites no authority establishing that a PAGA letter directed to the

LWDA becomes a record of an official act of a state agency merely because it is addressed to

that agency.

The PAGA Notices, Exhibits 1 and 3, are nevertheless judicially noticeable pursuant to Evidence

Code section 452, subdivision (h), which permits judicial notice of written instruments referenced

in a complaint and not subject to factual dispute. (Performance Plastering v. Richmond American

Homes (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659, 666 n.2.) Plaintiff references the PAGA Notices in

paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Complaint and does not dispute their contents in opposition.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1 and 3

pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h).

The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the existence of Exhibit 2

pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c), but not as to the truth of the statements

contained therein. Although the Court may take judicial notice of the existence of a document,

the truth of statements contained in the document and their proper interpretation are not subject

to judicial notice. (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9.)

The Court may also take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court

of record of the United States or of any state of the United States” including its register of

actions. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d); City and County of San Francisco v. Carraro (1963) 220

Cal.App.2d 509, 527.) However, only relevant material is subject to such excused burden of

evidentiary proof, and the court should decline judicial notice of material “that has no bearing on

the limited legal question at hand.” (Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th

1057, 1063 (citing, People v. Stoll (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1136, 1144, fn. 5.)

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 4 through 6.

Judicial notice of Exhibit 4 is unnecessary because it is the Complaint filed in this action. Exhibits

5 and 6 concern a separate action and are irrelevant to the limited issue presented by the

Demurrer because they do not pertain to the sufficiency of the PAGA Notices in this action.

2. Merits of the Demurrer

A. PAGA Pre-Litigation Notice Requirements

Before commencing a civil action under PAGA, an aggrieved employee must provide written

notice by online filing with the LWDA and by certified mail to the employer, identifying the Labor

Code provisions allegedly violated and the facts and theories supporting the alleged violations.

(Lab. Code, §§ 2699.3, subds. (a)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A), 2699.5; Esparza v. Safeway, Inc. (2019) 36

Cal.App.5th 42, 59 [“Before bringing a PAGA action, an aggrieved employee must give the

LWDA written notice of the facts and theories supporting the Labor Code violations alleged.

[Citation] ... PAGA’s pre-filing notice requirement is a mandatory precondition to bringing a

PAGA claim.”].)

The purpose of the notice requirement is to permit the LWDA to determine whether to allocate

resources to an investigation, a determination better made with knowledge of the allegations and

the factual basis supporting them. (Williams v. Superior Court (Marshalls of CA, LLC) 3 Cal.5th

531, 545-546.) The notice must contain more than bare allegations or legal conclusions parroting

the Labor Code provisions allegedly violated. (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28

Cal.App.5th 824, 836-837 (Brown).) It must provide sufficient facts to support the alleged

violations. (Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 986, 1004.) The

notice, however, need only provide minimal facts supporting the alleged Labor Code violation.

(Brown, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 838.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice does not provide sufficient “facts and theories”

to support the alleged Labor Code violations. Plaintiff’s Amended PAGA Notice is attached as

Exhibit 3 to Defendant’s request for judicial notice and is referenced in paragraph 9 of the

Complaint.

The Amended Notice identifies Plaintiff as a former non-exempt employee of Defendant who

worked as a behavior therapist from approximately August 31, 2023, through approximately July

3, 2024. (RJN Exh. 3 at p. 1.) It also identifies the non-exempt employees Plaintiff seeks to

represent. (Ibid.)

The Amended Notice sets forth the alleged “facts and theories” supporting the Labor Code

violations on pages 1 through 6. Considered as a whole, the Notice provides sufficient facts to

support each of the claimed violations.

For example, the allegations concerning unpaid minimum and overtime wages and denied meal

and rest breaks (Lab. Code, §§ 226.7, 510, 1197) identify the alleged practices resulting in

uncompensated work time, including off-the-clock work, and allege that the overtime rate failed

to include all renumerations. The Notice also identifies specific practices allegedly resulting in

noncompliant meal periods, including interrupted meal breaks, failures to provide or timely

provide meal breaks, requiring employees to carry cellular telephones or walkie-talkies during

meal breaks, and preventing employees from leaving the premises.

Based on these factual allegations, the Notice also sufficiently identifies the alleged violations

concerning inaccurate wage statements, untimely wages during employment, and untimely

wages at separation (i.e., Lab. Code, §§ 201.3, 203, 204, 226). The Notice likewise identifies the

expenses allegedly not reimbursed in support of the Labor Code section 2802 violation.

The Amended Notice is distinguishable from the notice found insufficient in Alcantar v. Hobart

Services (2015) 800 F.3d 1047, 1057, where the court found plaintiff’s letter was merely “a string

of legal conclusions with no factual allegations or theories of liability to support them” and

therefore insufficient to allow the LWDA to intelligently assess the seriousness of the alleged

violations. Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Notice contains factual allegations supporting the alleged

violations.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Amended PAGA Notice satisfies PAGA’s pre-filing notice

requirement and OVERRULES Defendant’s Demurrer to the extent it challenges the sufficiency

of that Notice.

B. Sufficiency of the Complaint

Defendant further contends that the PAGA cause of action is deficient, arguing that Plaintiff’s

counsel repeatedly reuses templates in labor dispute cases and asking the Court to consider a

Complaint and PAGA Notice filed by Plaintiff’s counsel in Vallacqua v. Quality Transformer &

Electronics, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV468866. (See RJN at Exhs. 5,

6.)

California requires a complaint to contain statements of the ultimate facts, in ordinary and

concise language, constituting the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., §425.10; Doheny Park

Terrace Homeowners Assn, Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076,

1099.) “Ultimate facts” are the essential elements of the cause of action. (Estes v. Eaton Corp.

(2020) 51 Cal. App. 5th 636, 643, fn. 2.) A complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a

cause of action; it need not allege every evidentiary fact that may ultimately form part of the

plaintiff’s proof. (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by Defendant and suffered the same violations as

the aggrieved employees. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 4.) The Complaint alleges that, during the PAGA period,

Defendant maintained policies and practices resulting in unpaid minimum and overtime wages

because Defendant failed to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked. Plaintiff

further alleges that Defendant forced or permitted employees to work off the clock by requiring

employees to arrive early or leave late without being able to clock in for all such time, wait in

lines to clock in, perform pre-shift and post-shift tasks off the clock, work during meal periods

after clocking out, don and doff uniforms and/or safety equipment off the clock, attend company

meetings off the clock, make telephone calls off the clock, and undergo temperature checks off

the clock. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant failed to communicate client cancellations and/or

schedule changes to employees. When overtime was paid, Plaintiff alleges that the rate was

incorrect because certain remunerations, including non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay,

and meal allowances, were not included in the regular rate of pay. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-18.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant maintained policies that resulted in noncompliant meal

and rest periods because employees were not provided timely breaks or were not provided

breaks at all, breaks were interrupted or shortened, employees were required to carry

communication equipment, employees were required to complete paperwork, write reports,

and/or create session notes during meal periods, and employees were not permitted to leave the

premises. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.) Plaintiff alleges that these practices resulted in inaccurate wage

statements and untimely payment of wages. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-23.)

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with Labor Code notice requirements,

failed to reimburse aggrieved employees for business expenses, failed to provide proper sick

leave, failed to pay accrued vacation upon separation, prevented aggrieved employees from

disclosing violations of law and certain information to other employers for purposes of preventing

competition, and prevented aggrieved employees from engaging in lawful conduct during non-

work hours. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-32.)

Considering the Complaint as a whole, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged the

facts supporting the asserted Labor Code violations. The allegations are sufficient to state the

cause of action, and Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff’s counsel may have used similar

allegations in another action does not establish that the Complaint fails to state a claim.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Demurrer to the extent it challenges the

sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint.

RULING

For the foregoing reasons, the Court rules as follows:

1. Request for Judicial Notice

a. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1 and 3 pursuant to

Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h);

b. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to take judicial notice of the existence of Exhibit 2

pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c), but not the truth of matters asserted

within Exhibit 2; and

c. The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 4 through 6 as

unnecessary and irrelevant.

2. The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Demurrer to the extent it argues that Plaintiff’s

PAGA Notice is insufficient.

3. The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Demurrer to the extent it alleges that the

allegations in the Complaint are insufficiently alleged.