(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
The plaintiff has stated sufficient facts of discrimination in employment, (First Cause of Action), intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, (Second Cause of Action), and actual controversy, (Third Cause of Action), Code Civ. Proc. sec. 430.10 (e). Each cause of action in the pleading is written clearly, unambiguously, and with certainty as to all facts and elements for the causes of action. Code Civ. Proc. sec. 430.10 (f).
If there be any other reason that the pleading must be repaired, an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is reviewable for abuse of discretion “even though no request to amend the pleading was made.” Code Civ. Proc. sec. 472c(a); see Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 CA4th 402, 412, 75 CR2d 257, 263.
The plaintiff has thoroughly reviewed the pleading before filing it and it does not contain a request to amend the pleading. However, it may be considered an abuse of discretion if a potentially effective amendment is “both apparent and consistent with plaintiff’s theory of the case.” Camsi IV v. Hunter Technology Corp. (1991) 230 CA3d 1525, 1542, 282 CR 80, 89. The outcome of this case is important not only to the plaintiff’s future and her plans to marry an employee, but for a large public interest who have received services for over twenty years from the defendants.
Plaintiff respectfully requests the demurrer be denied and the counts answered.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.