24 Cal. App. 5th 92
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Jensen and Kerr, employees at the same Home Depot store, sued Home Depot and individual managers for disability discrimination, wrongful termination, and related claims; complaint alleged a pattern of failing to accommodate disabled employees.
- Jensen alleged a 2010 workplace injury and subsequent denial of accommodation, leading to termination in November 2013; Kerr alleged she was denied a single day off for dental/neck/ mouth medical issues in April 2013 and was later terminated for attendance.
- Defendants demurred to the complaint for misjoinder, arguing the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from the same transaction or present common issues of law or fact; initial demurrer was sustained with leave to amend.
- Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC) repeating allegations and adding common-fact assertions (same store, same manager, both had medical issues and were terminated).
- Defendants demurred again for misjoinder; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice; plaintiffs appealed and Kerr was later dismissed from the appeal.
- On appeal Jensen argued the trial court should have severed or otherwise allowed amendment (Code Civ. Proc. § 379.5) rather than dismissing; the appellate court addressed whether dismissal without leave was proper and whether severance/amendment was available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were misjoined | Jensen: claims arise from a common pattern of disability discrimination at same store; common legal/factual issues | Defendants: claims arise from different events/times/reasons and do not share common transactions or issues | Appellate court did not decide merits because Kerr’s dismissal mooted misjoinder challenge; misjoinder was fixed by removing Kerr |
| Whether dismissal without leave to amend was proper after demurrer sustained for misjoinder | Jensen: trial court should have severed or allowed amendment (severance under § 379.5) instead of dismissing; she relied on severance remedy | Defendants: sustaining the demurrer without leave was appropriate given plaintiffs failed to cure defects or oppose the demurrer | Reversed as to Jensen: appellate court found dismissal without leave was improper as to Jensen because misjoinder could be cured (Kerr’s dismissal); directed trial court to vacate denial of leave and grant leave to amend as to first seven causes of action |
| Whether appeal should be dismissed as moot after Kerr’s dismissal | Jensen: appeal still raises remedy error (denial of severance/leave) affecting Jensen | Defendants: moot because misjoinder issue eliminated by Kerr’s dismissal | Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss appeal; the remedy issue was live for Jensen |
| Whether any causes remain subject to appeal | Jensen: seeks reversal as to her causes; wishes amendment for claims 1–7 | Defendants: argued entire appeal should be dismissed or affirmed | Court reversed dismissal as to Jensen for causes 1–7; causes solely about Kerr (8 and 10) are irrelevant; cause 9 (IIED) was sustained below on independent grounds (workers’ comp exclusivity) and Jensen did not appeal that ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 93 Cal.App.4th 700 (2001) (demurrer without leave is abuse if reasonable possibility of amendment to state cause of action)
- Sanowicz v. Bacal, 234 Cal.App.4th 1027 (2015) (plaintiff bears burden to show how complaint can be amended to cure defects)
- SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Canyon View Estates, Inc., 148 Cal.App.4th 663 (2007) (plaintiff may dismiss parties to remedy misjoinder)
- Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda, 216 Cal.App.4th 161 (2013) (issue is moot if events make effective appellate relief impossible)
- Loftus v. Fischer, 114 Cal. 131 (1896) (misjoined parties may be omitted from amended pleading)