 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pierce v. Santa Clarita Community College Dist.12/5/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiff and appellant Kenneth Pierce sued defendant and respondent Santa Clarita Community College District (SCCCD or District) for wrongful termination. The court dismissed the case after sustaining the District's demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. On appeal, Pierce contends the court abused its discretion and lacked competency in sustaining the demurrer. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
For nearly three years, Pierce worked as a welding laboratory technician for SCCCD's College of the Canyons. A part-time employee paid by the hour, Pierce believed he would become a permanent full-time employee after the passage of 195 working days. However, his supervisors allegedly asked him to report fewer hours worked in exchange for the promise of permanent full-time employment and any pay adjustments later. As a result, Pierce allegedly under-reported his working hours but never attained permanent status. The District later cut his hours and terminated him.
Pierce sued the District for wrongful termination, lost wages and related claims. After sustaining SCCCD's demurrer to the complaint and sustaining its demurrer to the first amended complaint with leave to amend, the court sustained the District's demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the case.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"`"We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed." [Citations.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [Citation.] And when it is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm. [Citations.] The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Carden v. Getzoff (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 907, 912, quoting from Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
The court, however, may disregard allegations that are contradicted by law or facts judicially noticeable, and it may consider facts alleged in prior versions of the complaint. (Fundin v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 951, 955; Owens v. Kings Supermarket (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 379, 384.) When the exhibits attached to a complaint contradict the allegations of the complaint, the exhibits prevail. (Vallejo Development Co. v. Beck Development Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929, 946.)
These rules apply to Pierce's original and first amended complaints, notwith-standing the fact that they were unverified. (Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 836.)
II. THE COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN SUSTAINING THE DEMURRER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
A. The Original Complaint
In his original complaint, Pie
Page 1 2 3 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|