Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.

Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

May 10, 2021, Decided; May 10, 2021, Filed

Case No. 20-cv-09355-MMC

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND

Before the Court is defendant Victory Woodworks, Inc.'s Motion, filed April 1, 2021, to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ["FAC"] for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiffs Corby Kuciemba and Robert Kuciemba have filed opposition, to which defendant has replied. The matter came on regularly for hearing on May 7, 2021. Martin Zurada of Venardi Zurada LLP appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; William Bogdan of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP appeared on behalf of defendant.

Having read and considered the parties' respective [*2]  written submissions as well as the arguments of counsel at the above-referenced hearing, the Court, for the reasons stated in detail on the record at said hearing, as well as the hearing conducted February 12, 2021, rules as follows:

1. To the extent plaintiffs' claims are based on allegations that Corby Kuciemba contracted COVID-19 "through direct contact with" Robert Kuciemba (see FAC ¶ 22), such claims are barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of California's workers' compensation statutes and, thus, are subject to dismissal. See Cal. Labor Code §§ 3600, 3602.

2. To the extent plaintiffs' claims are based on allegations that Corby Kuciemba contracted COVID-19 "indirectly through fomites such as [Robert Kuciemba's] clothing" (see FAC ¶ 22), such claims are subject to dismissal for failure to plead a plausible claim.

3. To the extent the above-described claims are neither barred by statute nor deemed insufficiently pleaded, such claims are subject to dismissal for the reason that defendant's duty to provide a safe workplace to its employees does not extend to nonemployees who, like Corby Kuciemba, contract a viral infection away from those premises.

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and [*3]  the instant action is hereby DISMISSED.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88997 *

CORBY KUCIEMBA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VICTORY WOODWORKS, INC., Defendant.

CORE TERMS

subject to dismissal, plaintiffs', allegations, contracted