(Super. Ct. No. 34-2009-00055011-CU-WT-GDS)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend as to the first two causes of action of the complaint (granting leave to amend the third). Plaintiff Felix Luu (Felix)*fn1 appeals from the subsequent order sustaining a demurrer to the amended third cause of action without leave to amend and dismissing the action.*fn2
In his opening brief, Felix limits the scope of his appeal to the trial court's dismissal of the action against defendant Luu's (sic) Brothers Corp. (hereafter defendant corporation), and only to the cause of action for plaintiff's termination in violation of public policy from his employment with A & A Supermarket (the supermarket; defendant corporation's nom de l'entreprise)--the second cause of action.*fn3 We shall reverse the judgment of dismissal as to defendant corporation and the second cause of action.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We assume the truth of well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint. (Fogarty v. City of Chico (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 537, 540 (Fogarty).) As we have denied Felix's request for judicial notice of allegations in what he terms a related action, we disregard his reference to them in his brief.
The pertinent allegations are few. Felix had been the general manager of the supermarket since 1996. In April 2008, Thanh Luu (Thanh) (a member of defendant corporation's board of directors, who are apparently all members of Felix's family) assaulted Felix's ex-wife in the store. Felix assisted the victim in contacting the police and prosecuting Thanh to "assur[e] that justice was done."
In May 2008, Duc C. Luu (Duc) (another board member) cut connections in the supermarket computer in an attempt to block Felix from seeing company accounting data. Duc also changed the lock on Felix's office, directed him to leave the premises, and ordered him not to return. On the same day, the corporate board voted to dismiss Felix from his employment. In fall 2007 and June 2008, Felix made unsuccessful requests for copies of corporate records, alleging that he had been attempting to investigate Duc's "conversion of funds" and the proper allocation of dividends to shareholders of four family-owned corporations (which include defendant corporation). He was offered access to look at the records but not copy them.
In sustaining the demurrer to the second cause of action without leave to amend, the trial court noted that Felix was asserting his termination was in retaliation for asserting his rights under Corporations Code section 1601 and assisting in the prosecution of a criminal offense. It ruled "Plaintiff has not alleged that he was required as an employee to do anything illegal . . . or that he was prevented from doing something he had a legal duty to do. [¶] . . . Plaintiff has not identified any constitutional provision, statute[,] or rule that would provide the requisite public policy."
On appeal, we review a trial court's ruling on a demurrer de novo. (Fogarty, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 542.) As for the denial of leave to amend, we determine whether there is any reasonable probability that the plaintiff can state a cause of action. (Lund ...