Tyler Kem v. Strike Advisory, LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMarch 4, 20242:23-cv-07459California2,633 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is defendant Ventive, LLC (“Ventive”) and defendant Jonathan Cardella’s (collectively the “Moving Defendants”) motion to dismiss for insufficient service pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) and for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). Dkt. 27 (“MTD”). On July 17, 2023, plaintiff Tyler Kem (“Kem”) filed an action against Defendants Strike Advisory, LLC (“Strike Advisory” or “Strike”), Ventive, Jonathan Cardella, and Does 1-50 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff brings claims against all defendants for (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; and (3) failure to timely pay final wages upon termination of employment and waiting penalties due to willful delay. Dkt. 1-2 (‘Compl.”) 41-165. He brings additional claims against Strike Advisory and Ventive for (4) breach of contract; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 Et Seq.; (7) violation of Labor Code § 98.6 regarding retaliation; (8) wrongful termination in violation of public…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.