Filed 10/22/26 Baptiste v. State of Cal. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
JETTA J. BAPTISTE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, G065245
v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021-
01218695)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al.,
OPINION
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Bradley S. Erdosi, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Motions to augment record. Granted.
Jetta J. Baptiste, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant
Attorney General, Maureen C. Onyeagbako and Diane P. Cragg, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents.
Foran Glennon, Gabriel Ullrich and Justin Berg for Defendants
and Respondents.
* * *
Plaintiff Jetta J. Baptiste appeals from a judgment of dismissal
entered after the trial court granted motions to strike her fifth amended
complaint in its entirety. Baptiste primarily contends the trial court wrongly
struck that complaint because it overcame the uncertainty pervading her
earlier pleadings.
We agree as to four defendants and reverse as to them. We
further reverse as to seven other defendants because they never challenged
Baptiste’s complaint at all.
But we also conclude the judgment should be affirmed with
respect to 10 defendants. For four of them, Baptiste still has not alleged
compliance with the Government Claims Act. For six of them, Baptiste has
not shown the trial court wrongly sustained their demurrers to an earlier
complaint.
FACTS
I.
THE INITIAL, FIRST, AND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTS
Baptiste filed her initial complaint in 2021, alleging she was not
paid for providing in-home health care during the COVID-19 pandemic.1
1 We previously affirmed an order granting a motion to quash
Baptiste’s service of summonses. (Baptiste v. Baetz (July 18, 2025, G063897)
[nonpub. opn.].)
2
Baptiste later amended her complaint, naming 23 defendants and
seeking $20 million. The amended complaint (FAC) did not list any causes of
action in the title; nor did the body contain any headers separating out any
distinct causes of action asserted against any particular defendants.
Thirteen of the named defendants filed demurrers to the FAC.
The record does not show any challenge to the FAC by the other 10 named
defendants.
The trial court sustained the demurrers to the FAC with leave to
amend. The court found: “Plaintiff’s first amended complaint does not
identify any specific causes of action or identify the defendant(s) sued in any
specific cause of action.”
Baptiste filed a second amended complaint (SAC), now listing 20
numbered causes of action in the title. The body of the SAC contained a
separate numbered heading for each cause of action, such as:
While the SAC’s caption listed 20 defendants, the SAC’s body
began by identifying only 15 of them as “all the Defendants.”2 Later, the SAC
alleged the defendants “conducted business,” “engaged employees,” were
“managed by,” or were “funded by” the omitted five defendants. The headings
did not specify against which defendants the causes of action had been
asserted. Nor did the body of the SAC do so. For example, the first cause of
2 The SAC omitted five of the 23 defendants named in the FAC—
Howard Thomas, Hilda Juarez, Mark Ghaly, Betty Yee, and Richard
Figueroa. It added two new defendants—County of Orange and State of
California.
3
action alleged simply that “Defendants violated the Wage Orders and Labor
Code . . . by failing to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked.”
The court sustained demurrers to the SAC by the same 13
defendants who had demurred to the FAC. The court found the SAC suffered
from the “same deficiencies” as the FAC; most notably, it did “not identify the
defendant(s) sued in any specific cause of action.”
The court denied leave to amend as to eight defendants: Gavin
Newsom, Kimberley Johnson, Donald P. Wagner, Katrina Foley, Andrew Do,
Doug Chaffee, Lisa Bartlett, and Leon J. Page. The court explained the SAC
“alleges no facts stating claims against” them.
The court granted leave to amend as to the other five demurring
defendants—Debra Baetz, Stephanie Hooker, Loan English, Aaron Hogue,
and the California Department of Social Services. The court directed plaintiff
to allege “compliance with applicable government claims procedures, identify
the defendant sued in each separate cause of action, and allege facts
demonstrating each defendant’s alleged liability.”
Seven other defendants named in the SAC did not challenge it—
In Home Support Services (IHSS), County of Orange, Orange County Social
Services Agency, Orange County Board of Supervisors, California Health and
Human Services Agency, California Department of Health Care Services, and
State of California.
II.
THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (TAC) naming the same
20 defendants in the same way. It listed 23 causes of action in the title,
numbered 1 through 22 because two causes of action were both numbered 18.
4
The causes of action numbered 17 and 21 in the title were not asserted in the
body of the TAC. Instead, the TAC had headings for three causes of action not
previously included in the SAC, for violations of the Rehabilitation Act,
substantive due process, and equal protection.
Eight defendants challenged the TAC in two waves.3 We see no
challenge by the other 12 defendants.
First, in November 2023, the trial court sustained demurrers by
defendants Newsom, Johnson, State of California, and the California
Department of Social Services.
The court denied leave to amend as to Newsom and Johnson,
noting it had already done so. It denied leave to amend as to defendant State
of California because plaintiff had improperly added it after the demurrer to
the FAC was sustained, though the court did so “without prejudice to
Plaintiff filing a motion for leave to amend.” The court granted leave to
amend as to defendant California Department of Social Services, despite
finding plaintiff had “not heeded the Court’s direction that she allege
compliance with the applicable government claims procedures.” The court
noted the TAC continued to “create[] confusion and uncertainty” about what
defendant did what. It also noted plaintiff improperly added three causes of
action to the TAC, though without expressly stating whether it was granting
or denying leave to amend.
3 In her briefing, Baptiste mentions a third challenge: overruled
demurrers by defendants Baetz, Hooker, and English. The register of actions
included a September 15, 2023 entry, “Minutes finalized for Demurrer to
Amended Complaint,” but no actual order is in the record. The parties have
filed unopposed motions to augment, which we grant. The omitted order is
not among the exhibits to those motions.
5
Baptiste did not amend as to California Department of Social
Services within the 20 days granted, instead waiting 41 days to appeal in
December 2023. We dismissed the appeal in February 2024 as taken from a
nonappealable order. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a fourth
amended complaint (4AC) 71 days later, in May 2024.
Second, while the motion for leave to amend was pending, the
court granted judgment on the pleadings in September 2024 to four
defendants: Baetz, Hooker, English, and Hogue.4 The court granted leave to
amend with 20 days “to comply with [Cal. Rules of Court,] rule 2.112, and to
allege[ ], in each cause of action asserted against each of Defendants, the
factual and legal basis for asserting each of those causes of action against
each of Defendants.”5 The court stated: “Plaintiff is NOT granted leave to
allege any new cause of action, to add any new parties, or to rename any
parties that have previously been dismissed.” It cautioned plaintiff: “Any
unauthorized amendments will be subject to being stricken on the motion of
any party, or the court on its own motion.”
Two weeks later, the trial court denied the motion for leave to file
the 4AC because it violated the procedural requirements for such a motion.
(See rule 3.1324.) It found Baptiste “has failed to show reasonable diligence
in seeking leave to amend, and prejudice to the opposing parties is clearly
shown as trial is now imminent.” It also found the 4AC improperly
“attempt[ed] to re-assert claims against parties as to whom a demurrer was
4 These defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment,
which the court construed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See
Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Torres Construction Corp. (2020) 57
Cal.App.5th 480, 493–494.)
5 All further rule references are to these rules.
6
previously sustained without leave to amend—specifically, as to Governor
Newsom and Director Johnson.” The proposed amendment was untimely as
to the California Department of Social Services and “fail[ed] to allege
compliance with the Government Claims Act as to either the DSS or the
State of California . . . .”
III.
THE FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
One week later, on the last day to timely amend within the 20
days allowed by the order granting judgment on the pleadings, Baptiste filed
a fifth amended complaint (5AC).6 The 5AC asserted 20 causes of action,
deleting four causes of action from the body of the TAC (unfair competition,
false advertising, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, substantive due process)
and adding one new cause of action (lodging violations).
The 5AC named 21 defendants in the caption, adding a new
defendant—In-Home Support Services Public Authority.7 But in the body, the
5AC initially identified only 20 defendants as “all the Defendants”—omitting
County of Orange. On the other hand, the 5AC contained substantive
allegations against County of Orange in various causes of action.
6 Baptiste submitted the 5AC to the court on the 20th day. At a
later hearing, the court explained it was not officially filed until the following
week due to “some snafu downstairs.”
7 While the 5AC continued to name Kimberley Johnson,
respondents note she was succeeded as director of California Department of
Social Services by respondent Jennifer Troia on October 9, 2024. (See Balico
v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 717, 722, fn.3 [substituting
parties on appeal due to change in officeholder].) For convenience, we will
continue to refer to Johnson.
7
Unlike the prior complaints, two causes of action in the 5AC
explicitly specified in their headings that they were alleged “against all
Defendants”—the eleventh cause of action for negligent misrepresentation
and the seventeenth cause of action for “Breach of Special Fiduciary Duty.”
While the other headings did not specify any defendants, each
cause of action (except one)8 contained a body paragraph identifying
defendants against which it was asserted. For example, under the heading
for the first cause of action, paragraph 232 alleged: “The Defendants namely
Debra Baetz, Stephanie Hooker, Loan English, Aaron Hogue, Andrew Do,
Katrina Foley, Donald P. Wagner, Lisa Bartlett, Doug Chaffee, Leon J. Page,
Kimberley Johnson, Gavin Newsom, In-Home Support Services (IHSS),
County of Orange, In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority, the State
of California and their directors, and Does 1 through 20 all violated the Wage
Orders and Labor Code sections 200, et seq., 204, 204b, 223, 1194, 1197, and
1198 by failing to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked.”
Unlike the SAC or TAC, the 5AC also alleged each defendant was
the employee, agent, or alter ego of the other defendants. It alleged: “At all
times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants namely Debra Baetz,
Stephanie Hooker, Loan English, Aaron Hogue, Andrew Do, Katrina Foley,
Donald P. Wagner, Lisa Bartlett, Doug Chaffee, Leon J. Page, Kimberley
Johnson, Gavin Newsom, In-Home Support Services (IHSS), County of
Orange, In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority, the State of
California and their directors, Orange County Social Services Agency, Orange
8 The 5AC’s eighteenth cause of action for intentional infliction of
emotional distress still does not specify which defendants it is asserted
against. The court correctly struck it.
8
County Board of Supervisors, California Department of Social Services,
California Health and Human Services Agency, and the California
Department of Health Care Services while being concerned together with
others, and their directors, and Does 1 through 20 was the agent, servant,
employee, alter ego, and/or principal of each of the remaining Defendants,
and in doing the things hereinafter described, was and is acting within the
purpose, course and scope of such agency, servitude and/or employment, with
the permission of all the remaining Defendants, and that each of the
Defendants has ratified and approved the acts of the remaining Defendants,
as alleged herein.”
Eight defendants filed motions to strike the 5AC. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 436.) One motion was filed by what the trial court collectively labeled
the “State Defendants”: Newsom, Johnson, the California Department of
Social Services, and the State of California. The other motion was filed by
what the trial court collectively labeled the “County Defendants”: Baetz,
Hooker, English, and Hogue.
The trial court (now Judge Bradley Erdosi) granted both motions
without leave to amend in February 2025. It stated the 5AC “violates the
same rules of pleading that led the Court to sustain a number of prior
demurrers, and a [motion for judgment on the pleadings].” It found the 5AC
“does not specifically identify each defendant against whom each cause of
action is directed. It also fails to allege the factual and legal basis for
attempting to hold each specific defendant liable on any particular claim.
Listing the defendant in each claim does not suffice.” The court noted it had
“expressly warned Plaintiff that further failure to cure these defects would
result in the sustaining of demurrers, or granting motions to strike, without
9
leave to amend and which led the Court to deny her motion to file the
proposed 4AC.”
The trial court noted a variety of other pleading defects. The 5AC
attempted to “re-assert claims against parties,” after they had “been removed
from the case.” For the State Defendants, prior demurrers had been
sustained “because Plaintiff did not allege she presented a claim to the State
(as opposed to Orange County) under the Government Claims Act,” and “she
still” failed to make the allegations in her 5AC. Defendants Newsom’s and
Johnson’s demurrer to the TAC had been sustained without leave to amend.
The 5AC was untimely as plaintiff had been granted 20 days leave in
November 2023 to amend the TAC as to the California Department of Social
Services and 20 days leave in September 2024 to amend the TAC as to
defendants Baetz, Hooker, English, and Hogue.
The day after the court struck the 5AC, Baptiste filed a
premature notice of appeal. The next day, she filed a motion for the court to
reconsider the striking of the 5AC. She filed two ex parte applications two
weeks later asking the court to (1) advance the hearing date for the motion to
reconsider and (2) order emergency funding, claiming she needed “to cover
expenses such as legal fees, court reporting fees, videography, transcription
fees, conference room rental, and travel costs associated with” multiple
deposition that were part of “essential pre-trial preparations.” The court
denied both applications, finding insufficient justification to advance the
hearing date and that “this action is terminated.”
Before the court entered judgment, Baptiste filed a “motion to
vacate judgment orders” (cleaned up). She asserted the trial court wrongly
struck the 5AC; failed to review a brief she had filed to support the
complaint; and wrongly denied her ex parte applications.
10
While the motion was pending, the court signed and entered a
written judgment in May 2025. It decreed: “1. The State Defendants’ Motion
to Strike the Fifth Amended Complaint is granted without leave to amend;
[¶] 2. The County Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Fifth Amended Complaint
is granted without leave to amend; [¶] 3. Judgment is entered in favor of the
State Defendants and County Defendants, and against plaintiff Jetta
Baptiste; [¶] 4. This matter is dismissed.”
Two months later, the trial court denied Baptiste’s motion to
vacate. It noted its ruling striking the 5AC was “subsumed into the judgment
of dismissal entered” and declined to consider any assertion raised for the
first time on reply. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant the
motion to the extent it sought “the exact same relief she is asking [for] in her
appeal—to change the ruling on the motions to strike.” (See Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 916.) It further found it lacked jurisdiction to vacate its ex parte order
“because the case ha[d] been terminated by a final judgment of dismissal.”
(See APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181–182.)
DISCUSSION
We save Baptiste’s purported appeal from the nonappealable
February 24, 2025 order striking the 5AC. We construe the premature appeal
as having been taken from the judgment subsequently entered on May 28,
2025. (Rule 8.104(d)(2).)
Baptiste’s appeal from the judgment encompasses both the order
striking the 5AC and the interim orders on the SAC and TAC. On appeal
from a final judgment, we “may review . . . any intermediate ruling, . . . order
or decision which involves the merits or necessarily affects the judgment . . .
appealed from or which substantially affects the rights of a party.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 906; accord County of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 76
11
Cal.App.4th 1025, 1028) [appellate court is “obligated” and “required” to
perform this review]; Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 128
(Jennings) [“an order sustaining a demurrer . . . or denying leave to amend
the complaint is generally reviewable on appeal from the final judgment”];
Ellerbee v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1213
(Ellerbee) [“Whether a motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied or
granted, an appeal from that ruling may be taken from the ultimate
judgment”].)9
Rather than lay out in advance all legal principles that will apply
to all 20 causes of action against 21 defendants, we find it expedient to place
the defendants into Groups A–F and explain the analysis for each in turn.10
Group A: Newsom, Johnson. Judgment affirmed. We take
no issue with striking the 5AC as to these defendants because their demurrer
to the SAC was denied without leave to amend. But that intermediate order
9 “In general, plaintiffs who amend a complaint rather than
appeal the trial court’s order waive the right to appeal any error in
sustaining the first demurrer. [Citation.] However, that rule does not apply if
the trial court denied the plaintiffs leave to include those causes of action in
an amended complaint.” (City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare (2007) 41 Cal.4th
859, 870.) As the court denied leave to amend the SAC and TAC as to various
defendants, we review those rulings—even where Baptiste later attempted to
amend without leave to do so.
10 Baptiste raises a panoply of other challenges but none have
merit. For example, the trial court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to
rule on Baptiste’s motion to vacate, because this appeal “embraced” the same
matters. (Code Civ. Proc., § 916.) And Baptiste has not shown the court
abused its discretion in denying her ex parte applications. (See People ex rel.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Suh (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 253, 257 [standard of review];
County of Los Angeles v. Niblett (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 454, 475 (Niblett)
[contention not developed in opening brief is forfeited].)
12
is reviewable on appeal from the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 906; Jennings,
supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 128.)
We hold the court correctly sustained the demurrer to the SAC
without leave to amend. Baptiste failed to allege compliance with the
Government Claims Act, which requires a plaintiff suing a public entity or
employee for damages to first present a timely written claim to the
defendant. (Gov. Code, §§ 945.4, 950.2 & 950.4; Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1
(2017) 3 Cal.5th 903, 906 (Rubenstein).) These defendants raised this issue in
their demurrer to the SAC. Though the court did not reach this issue, “[w]e
will affirm if there is any ground on which the demurrer can properly be
sustained, whether or not the trial court relied on proper grounds . . . .”
(Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024,
1031 (Martin).) Baptiste does not challenge this conclusion in her opening
brief. (See Niblett, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at 475 [contention not developed in
opening brief is forfeited].) Her reply contentions are untimely and
unpersuasive. (High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas (2018) 29
Cal.App.5th 102, 111, fn. 2 [“New arguments may not be raised for the first
time in an appellant’s reply brief”].)
B: California Department of Social Services. Judgment
affirmed. The November 9, 2023 intermediate order sustaining the
defendant’s demurrer to the TAC gave plaintiff leave to amend within 20
days but plaintiff failed to do so. On the merits, the order sustaining the
demurrer was correct because Baptiste failed to allege Government Claims
Act compliance. (Gov. Code, § 945.4; Rubenstein, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 906.)
C: State of California. Judgment affirmed. The State was
improperly added for the first time to the SAC, after the court had already
sustained a demurrer to the FAC. “Following an order sustaining a demurrer
13
or a motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend, the plaintiff
may amend his or her complaint only as authorized by the court’s order.”
(Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023
(Harris).) Leave to amend a complaint “does not constitute leave to amend to
add [a] new defendant.” (Ibid.) And the State correctly notes Baptiste failed
to allege Government Claims Act compliance.11
D: Do, Foley, Wagner, Bartlett, Chaffee, Page. Judgment
affirmed. The trial court correctly struck the 5AC as to these defendants.
The court had already sustained their demurrers to the SAC without leave to
amend for reasons including Baptiste’s failure to identify which causes of
action were asserted against which defendants. (See Rule 2.112 [“Each
separately stated cause of action . . . must specifically state . . . [¶] . . . [¶] (4)
The party or parties to whom it is directed”].)
Baptiste has not shown any error in this ruling. The court had
already warned Baptiste about this deficiency in sustaining the demurrer to
the FAC. Yet neither the SAC’s headings nor body specified which causes of
action were asserted against these defendants. Once the court denied leave to
amend as to these defendants, Baptiste had no legal right to later include
them in the 5AC. Indeed, when the court granted judgment on the pleadings
for other defendants on the TAC, its order specified Baptiste was “NOT
granted leave to . . . rename any parties that ha[d] previously been
11 The respondent’s brief filed by defendants County of Orange,
Orange County Board of Supervisors, and Orange County Social Service
Agency does not assert Baptiste failed to allege Government Claims Act
compliance as to them. We note without comment that the 5AC alleges in
paragraph 256 that Baptiste “filed a claim for money damages against the
County of Orange (Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 910 et seq.) in the amount
of $76,439.24.”
14
dismissed.” Thus, the 5AC was properly stricken as against these “Group D”
defendants. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 436 [court may “[s]trike out all or any part
of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a
court rule, or an order of the court”].)
E: Baetz, Hooker, English, Hogue. Judgment reversed. We
conclude the 5AC does not suffer from the three defects noted in the order
striking it. “We liberally construe the complaint ‘with a view to substantial
justice between the parties,’ drawing ‘all reasonable inferences in favor of the
asserted claims.’” (Liapes v. Facebook, Inc. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 910, 919
(Liapes).)
First, the 5AC was not untimely as to these defendants. The
court granted plaintiff leave to amend the TAC against these defendants
within 20 days of the September 25, 2024 order—i.e., no later than October
15. The register of actions shows Baptiste submitted her 5AC on October 15,
though it also indicates the filing was rejected. But at an October 23, 2024
hearing, the court denied an ex parte application to strike the 5AC. It
explained: “there was some snafu downstairs in terms of getting the fifth
amended complaint filed so I had a staff member reach out and coordinate to
get that squared away so that we got it on file. [¶] It was filed. I actually have
the original right here now and after [the] hearing we have to send it back
downstairs so they can image it and get it into the system but have it
entered. It has been file stamped, and it is on file now so we were able to get
that -- [¶] . . . [¶] -- straightened out.” From this we conclude the 5AC—
despite its October 22, 2024 filed stamp—was timely presented. (See Rojas v.
Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 778 [“a paper is deemed filed when it is
deposited with the clerk with directions to file the paper”].)
15
Second, the 5AC adequately identifies which causes of action are
asserted against these defendants. For example, paragraph 232 clarifies the
first cause of action is asserted against these defendants. These defendants
are similarly identified in the other causes of action. While the court found
“[l]isting the defendant in each claim does not suffice,” we read rule 2.112 to
require only that each cause of action must “specifically state”“[t]he party or
parties to whom it is directed (e.g., ‘against defendant Smith’).” (Rule 2.112.)
It does not expressly require the defendants to be named in the headings,
which would conflict with the duty to construe the complaint “liberally” and
“‘with a view to substantial justice.’” (Liapes, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at
p. 919.)
Third, we do not find the order denying Baptiste’s motion for
leave to file a 4AC to be controlling. The trial court soundly denied the motion
on procedural grounds. It was comprised of two paragraphs that failed to
“identify the allegations in the previous pleading proposed to be deleted” and
new allegations “proposed to be added.” (Rule 3.1324(a)(1) & (3); see
Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985 [procedural rules apply
to self-represented parties].) But even to the extent the court reached the
merits of the 4AC, its order did not vacate the prior order granting judgment
on the pleadings with leave to amend.
Even though Baptiste was granted leave to amend the TAC as
against these “Group E” defendants, the court did not give plaintiff leave to
assert new causes of action against these defendants. (Harris, supra, 185
Cal.App.4th at p. 1023.) Thus, as to these defendants, plaintiff is bound to the
causes of action that were asserted in both the TAC and 5AC, and which the
5AC clarifies were asserted against them: 1) “Failure to Pay for All Hours
Worked”; 2) “Failure to Pay Minimum Wages”; 3) “Failure to Pay Overtime
16
Wages”; 4) “Failure to Provide Meal Periods, or Premium Wages in Lieu
Thereof”; 5) “Failure to Provide Rest Breaks, or Premium Wages in Lieu
Thereof”; 6) “Failure to Indemnify for Necessary Business Expenses”;
7) “Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements”; 8) “Willful
Failure to Pay all Wages Owed Timely Upon Discharge or Resignation”;
9) “Fraud”; 10) “Negligent Misrepresentation”; 11) “Breach of Implied
Contract”; 12) “Quantum Meruit”; 13) “Unjust Enrichment”; 14) “Theft by
False Pretenses”; 15) “Intentional Discrimination”; and 16) “Breach of Special
Fiduciary Duty.”
F: In-Home Support Services (IHSS), County of Orange,
Orange County Social Services Agency, Orange County Board of
Supervisors, California Health and Human Services Agency,
California Department of Health Care Services, IHSS Public
Authority. Judgment reversed. While the trial court granted the motion
to strike filed by eight defendants, it dismissed the action in its entirety. We
find no pleading challenge by these seven “Group F” defendants in the
record.12 None of the relevant orders adjudicates the complaint in their favor.
12 We asked the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding the
status of these defendants. Respondents Baetz, Hooker, English, and Hogue
stated they did not know whether any of these defendants had been served
and did not believe any had appeared in the case. Baptiste asserted she
served County of Orange, Orange County Social Services Agency, Orange
County Board of Supervisors and California Health and Human Services
Agency with the 5AC in February 2025, though her record citations do not
show that. She further asserted she served IHSS with the TAC in 2023 but
her “attempts to serve IHSS” with the 5AC “were unsuccessful.” Finally,
Baptiste stated she was unable to serve defendants California Department of
Health Care Services and IHSS Public Authority. The State Defendants filed
no brief.
17
We see no reason why they are entitled to judgment now. We express no
opinion on any other issue, including whether these defendants are proper
legal entities, were properly named, or have procedural or substantive
defenses to the 5AC.13
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed as to defendants Gavin Newsom,
Kimberley Johnson, the California Department of Social Services, the State
of California, Andrew Do, Katrina Foley, Donald P. Wagner, Lisa Bartlett,
Doug Chaffee, and Leon J. Page.
The judgment is reversed as to defendants Debra Baetz,
Stephanie Hooker, Loan English, Aaron Hogue, In-Home Support Services
(IHSS), County of Orange, Orange County Social Services Agency, Orange
County Board of Supervisors, California Health and Human Services Agency,
California Department of Health Care Services, and the In-Home Support
Services Public Authority.
As to defendants Debra Baetz, Stephanie Hooker, Loan English,
and Aaron Hogue, the matter is remanded for the court to adjudicate the 16
causes of action alleged in the TAC, as clarified by the 5AC.
As to defendants In-Home Support Services (IHSS), County of
Orange, Orange County Social Services Agency, Orange County Board of
Supervisors, California Health and Human Services Agency, California
13 Some of these non-moving defendants are not named in some of
the surviving causes of action. For example, the 5AC’s first cause of action
does not name Orange County Social Services Agency, Orange County Board
of Supervisors, California Health and Human Services Agency, nor the
California Department of Health Care Services. We express no opinion on the
merits of any challenge on this issue either.
18
Department of Health Care Services, and In-Home Support Services Public
Authority, the matter is remanded for the court to adjudicate the 5AC.
Baptiste shall recover her costs on appeal, if any, from
defendants Debra Baetz, Stephanie Hooker, Loan English, Aaron Hogue, In-
Home Support Services (IHSS), Orange County Social Services Agency, and
Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Defendants Gavin Newsom, Kimberley Johnson, County of
Orange, the California Department of Social Services, and State of California
shall recover their costs on appeal, if any, against Baptiste.
SCOTT, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
GOODING, J.
19