Buntin v. Ulta, Inc., 18-cv-06969-YGR. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190131924
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE Re: Dkt. No. 16 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On December 21, 2018, defendants Ulta, Inc. and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics, & Fragrance, Inc. filed a motion to: (1) dismiss Ulta, Inc. from the above-captioned case and all causes of action asserted against defendants in plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; and (2) strike the words "and/or remedy" from plaintiff's fifth cause of
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE Re: Dkt. No. 16 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On December 21, 2018, defendants Ulta, Inc. and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics, & Fragrance, Inc. filed a motion to: (1) dismiss Ulta, Inc. from the above-captioned case and all causes of action asserted against defendants in plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; and (2) strike the words "and/or remedy" from plaintiff's fifth cause of a..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE Re: Dkt. No. 16
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
On December 21, 2018, defendants Ulta, Inc. and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics, & Fragrance, Inc. filed a motion to: (1) dismiss Ulta, Inc. from the above-captioned case and all causes of action asserted against defendants in plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; and (2) strike the words "and/or remedy" from plaintiff's fifth cause of action, or failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and/or harassment in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12940, et seq. (Dkt. No. 16.) The matter was heard on January 29, 2019. Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and the hearing held on January 29, 2019, and as stated on the record at the hearing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
• Defendants' motion to dismiss Ulta, Inc. is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, it is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to plaintiff's integrated enterprise, alter ego, and agency theories; it is DENIED as to plaintiff's joint employer theory.1
• Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's FEHA claim for discrimination on the basis of sex is DENIED.
• Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's FEHA claim for discrimination on the basis of perceived disability is DENIED.
• Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's FEHA claim for retaliation is DENIED.
• Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for violation of the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Act, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12945, et seq., is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
• Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's FEHA claim for failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and/or harassment is DENIED.
• Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy is DENIED.
• Defendants' motion to strike the words "and/or remedy" from plaintiff's fifth cause of action is DENIED.
Defendants' answer to plaintiff's First Amended Complaint shall be due on Thursday, February 14, 2019.
This Order terminates Docket Number 16.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's counsel indicated at the hearing that she did not seek leave to amend with respect to plaintiff's integrated enterprise, alter ego, and agency theories.
Source: Leagle
