Demurrer to Complaint
there is no Contract between Plaintiffs and Defendant Robert C. Mullins. The Complaint also lacks any allegations establishing fact sufficient to support and alter ego theory of liability. Importantly, Plaintiff’s third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties, fourth cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and sixth cause of action for violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. all reply on a presupposed a relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant Robert Mullins based on the contract at issue in the Complaint. As discussed, however, no such relationship has been alleged between Plaintiffs and Defendant Robert Mullins.
The Complaint also lacks allegations regarding any wrongful misrepresentations or acts causing negligent infliction of emotional distress that were committed by Defendant Robert Mullins in his individual capacity.
For the reasons discussed above, Defendant Robert C. Mullins’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED in its entirety WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.
In making this ruling, the Court is mindful that it reached the opposite conclusion in May 2025 as to Defendant Hai Minh Le. Plaintiff may choose to stipulate with Defendant Hai Minh Le as to the following: Plaintiff may amend the complaint as to Hai Minh Le as well, and the answer by Hai Minh Le is stricken and Hai Minh Le may file a new responsive pleading after the amended complaint is filed and served. Alternatively, Defendant Hai Minh Le may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Case Management Conference is continued to August 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.
Moving defendant to give notice.
107 Alvidrez vs. Covetrus Software Services, LLC, 25-01459002 Plaintiff Michael Alvidrez (“Plaintiff”) moves for leave to amend his Complaint pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3 and Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to add a PAGA cause of action. Defendant Covetrus Software Services, LLC (“Defendant”) opposes the motion.
“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (
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?”
The proposed FAC is attached to Plaintiff’s supporting declaration. That declaration also explains the effect of the proposed amendment, when the facts giving rise to the amendment became known, and why Plaintiff did not seek leave earlier.
Defendant argues the motion should be denied because Plaintiff has offered no explanation for the failure to seek leave to amend earlier, Plaintiff’s pattern of conduct shows bad faith and dilatory motive, and Defendant would be prejudiced if amendment is allowed by having to litigate a new and distinct theory.
Plaintiff’s counsel has explained that he was under the impression that leave was not required so long as he filed an amended complaint within 60 days of the PAGA notice maturing, which is a reasonable reading of Labor Code section 2699.3(a)(2)(C). Thus, Plaintiff attempted to file an amended complaint in May, shortly after his PAGA notice matured. After those attempted filings were rejected, Plaintiff requested that Defendant stipulate to the amendment. When defense counsel indicated that they would not stipulate on July 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed his first motion for leave to amend on August 11, 2025, which was denied for purely procedural deficiencies.
The Court finds no evidence of dilatory motive or delay in this procedural history. Further, Defendant has presented no evidence in support of its claim of prejudice, such as facts regarding the discovery performed thus far. Thus, the Court finds Defendant’s arguments unpersuasive.