Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06969/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06969-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARLY BUNTIN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ULTA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 18-cv-06969-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT 

LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION TO 

STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 16 

On December 21, 2018, defendants Ulta, Inc. and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics, & Fragrance, Inc. 

filed a motion to: (1) dismiss Ulta, Inc. from the above-captioned case and all causes of action 

asserted against defendants in plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint; and (2) strike the words 

“and/or remedy” from plaintiff’s fifth cause of action, or failure to take all reasonable steps to 

prevent discrimination and/or harassment in violation of California’s Fair Employment and 

Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940, et seq. (Dkt. No. 16.) The matter was heard 

on January 29, 2019. Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this 

action, and the hearing held on January 29, 2019, and as stated on the record at the hearing, the 

Court ORDERS as follows: 

 Defendants’ motion to dismiss Ulta, Inc. is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

Specifically, it is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to plaintiff’s integrated 

enterprise, alter ego, and agency theories; it is DENIED as to plaintiff’s joint employer 

theory.1

 Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FEHA claim for discrimination on the basis 

of sex is DENIED. 

 1

 Plaintiff’s counsel indicated at the hearing that she did not seek leave to amend with 

respect to plaintiff’s integrated enterprise, alter ego, and agency theories. 

Case 4:18-cv-06969-YGR Document 24 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FEHA claim for discrimination on the basis 

of perceived disability is DENIED. 

 Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FEHA claim for retaliation is DENIED. 

 Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for violation of the California 

Pregnancy Disability Leave Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12945, et seq., is GRANTED 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

 Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FEHA claim for failure to take all 

reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and/or harassment is DENIED. 

 Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for wrongful constructive termination 

in violation of public policy is DENIED. 

 Defendants’ motion to strike the words “and/or remedy” from plaintiff’s fifth cause 

of action is DENIED. 

Defendants’ answer to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint shall be due on Thursday, 

February 14, 2019. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 16. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 30, 2019 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:18-cv-06969-YGR Document 24 Filed 01/30/19 Page 2 of 2