DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT
Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, September 17, 2025, Line 10. 1 - DEFENDANTS NGM BIOPHARMACEUTICALS INC., AND JEAN-FREDERIC VIRET's DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT.
Defendants' demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. The issue under section CCP 430.10(e) is, taking the facts properly pleaded and properly noticed as true, does the challenged cause of action necessarily fail to state a claim for relief. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In assessing whether the complaint states a cause of action, the court accepts all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Minton v. Dignity Health (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1161.) The court liberally construes the complaint pursuant to CCP 452.
Here, Plaintiff Clarence Stokes does not plead sufficient facts, even including those improperly presented in his opposition, to establish any of his causes of action. Mere conclusory statements, such as that Stokes was "discriminated against" and "harassed," are insufficient without providing specific material facts to support each claim. Those statements are legal conclusions, not statements of fact, and will not suffice to state a claim. Further, the use of a form complaint is improper in this case under CCP 425.12, since the case is not based on personal injury, property damage, wrongful death, unlawful detainer, breach of contract, or fraud.
Additionally, while Defendants are correct that supervisors may not be sued individually under FEHA for alleged discrimination or wrongful termination, supervisors may still be individually liable for harassment. (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663; Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55.) Therefore, Defendant Jean-Frederic Vivet cannot be dismissed from the case, since Stokes has the opportunity to plead facts that give rise to a harassment claim against Vivet.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA)