Baah

FACTS

Baah filed a verified complaint against “AT&T” for retaliation, misrepresentation, fraud, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Baah filed a verified first amended complaint against “AT&T, AT&T California, [and] SBC Communication” alleging the same causes of action.2 AT&T Corp. filed a demurrer for “Pacific Bell Telephone Company erroneously sued as AT&T, AT&T California, [and] SBC Communications.” AT&T Corp. filed requests for judicial notice. One of the requests included the following exhibits: (1) a fictitious business name statement indicating “‘AT&T California’” is Pacific Bell’s fictitious business name; (2) service of process for AT&T California; (3) a fictitious business name statement indicating “SBC California” is Pacific Bell’s fictitious business name; and (4) Baah’s W-2 forms from Pacific Bell. On October 28, 2010, the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. As relevant here, the court stated, “Moving party Pacific Bell has established that AT&T is its fictitious business name and that [Baah] was [Pacific Bell’s] employee.” The court granted the request for judicial notice but not as to the truth AT&T California was served.…