ServPro?s demurrers are?overruled?in their entirety.

ServPro claims that the First Amended Complaint does not sufficiently allege its role as an employer.? The First Amended Complaint alleges that ServPro is a joint employer and, further, details some of ServPro?s involvement in the plaintiffs? employment.??FAC, ?? 8-9.

In California, a ?plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of his case with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.??Alch v. Superior Court?(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 339, 382. A plaintiff does not need to allege evidentiary facts.??C.A. v. William S. Hart Union H.S. Dist.?(2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872;?Centex Homes v. Superior Court?(2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1102.? There is no need to require specificity in the pleadings because modern discovery procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading.??Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass?n, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange?(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1098-1099 [internal quotes and citations omitted].).

There is a significant difference between what is required to plead a claim and what is required to prove a claim.? The cases relied upon by ServPro involve summary judgment motions.? As those cases demonstrate, whether the facts support the allegation of joint employment is a question for another day.? At this pleading stage, the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, and in particular ?9 therof, are sufficient to state a claim.

The court?s minute order will constitute the order.

Plaintiff to give notice.