Doe v. Newsom CA1/3

── Doe v. Newsom CA1/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 Doe v. Newsom CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE JANE DOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A174097 v. GAVIN NEWSOM, (City & County of San Francisco Defendant and Respondent. Super. Ct. No. CGC24619361) Jane Doe sued Gavin Newsom, Balboa Café Partners, and other defendants, alleging various Labor Code violations that occurred while she worked at Balboa Café (café). (Undesignated statutory references are to this code.) The trial court sustained Newsom’s demurrer without leave to amend. Doe appeals, and we affirm. BACKGROUND1 In October 2024, Doe filed a complaint alleging Newsom was liable for his codefendants’ wage and break violations. She worked at the café from August 2021 until March 2023, when she was terminated. The café is part of PlumpJack, a parent company owned by the Newsom family (company). It is 1 Because this appeal follows a demurrer, the following facts are taken from the operative complaint and the documents of which the trial court took judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 459, subd. (a); Doe v. Google, Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 948, 952.) Although the complaint asserts 26 causes of action, we limit our discussion to those asserted against Newsom. 1 undisputed that Newsom transferred his interest in the company to a blind trust in January 2019. Doe alleged that, during her employment, “the nature of the work” “prevented her from taking” rest breaks, and the company intentionally scheduled workdays without rest breaks. She also “regularly worked more than ten . . . hours without a second meal period” and did not receive her earned wages after the company terminated her. She alleged that Newsom implemented the violative policies, had oversight over the company’s operations at the time the policies became operative, and influenced them. In January 2025, Newsom and the other defendants demurred. As relevant here, Newsom argued the claims against him were time-barred because Doe filed her complaint in October 2024 — more than four years after he had any involvement or participation in the company. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 335, 338.) In opposition, she argued her allegations that he established the policies that created the violations made him liable under section 558.1. The trial court sustained Newsom’s demurrer without leave to amend. It concluded that Doe’s claims were time-barred because he relinquished control of the company in 2019. Any alleged violative conduct could have only occurred before then. DISCUSSION Doe contends the trial court erroneously sustained Newsom’s demurrer without leave to amend. “When reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we examine de novo whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action.” (Liapes v. Facebook, Inc. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 910, 919.) “ ‘We assume the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, [and] facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded.’ ” (Ibid.) “But we do not assume the truth of ‘contentions, deductions, or conclusion of law.’ ” 2 (Ibid.) “We liberally construe the complaint ‘with a view to substantial justice between the