Defendant?s request for judicial notice is?granted?as to Exhibits 1, 3 and 10;?denied?as superfluous for Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 (no request for judicial notice is required for documents on file in the instant matter) and?denied?as irrelevant for Exhibit 7.

Defendant’s demurrer is?overruled.

Defendant argues that the LWDA complaint did not provide sufficient notice because it named Albertson Companies, Inc., rather than Albertsons LLC and because Plaintiff?s name was slightly misspelled.? Defendant does not, however, point to any place in the complaint or provide any judicially noticeable evidence to support that Defendant was actually ignorant of the LWDA complaint within the one-year statute of limitations or that the LWDA did not have sufficient information to investigate.

In determining a demurrer, the Court may look to the allegations of the pleading, the records of the action and any matter which is judicially noticeable.? Looking at those documents, the Court cannot determine that the inaccurate names meant that Defendant was ignorant of the LWDA complaint until after the one-year statutory period had passed.? To the contrary, the records suggest that Defendant was or should have been aware of Plaintiff?s claim before the one-year period had passed.? For example, the?civil complaint (filed 4/12/17?before the year was up) specifies that Plaintiff was employed in the San Clemente Albertsons.??Complaint, ?? 5, 11 and 15.??Defendant?s?answer, filed on June 8, 2017 (also before the year was up, based on the allegation that Plaintiff was employed ?through June 2016?), was filed on behalf of ?ALBERTSON?S LLC (erroneously sued as ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.).?

As court explained in?Rowe v. Michaels Stores, Inc.?2017 WL 4237003, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2017)?a case cited by Defendant in its demurrer and reply?errors which are easily corrected by context do not render an LWDA complaint ineffective.

Plaintiff to give notice.