Naeini v. Confluent Inc. (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Ava Naeini v. Confluent Inc.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
California (CA)
Court
California Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Affirmed
Majority
Chavez (J.) (unanimous Court)
AVA NAEINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONFLUENT INC.,..., Not Reported in... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 237431Not Officially Published(Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110, 8.1115)Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, restrictscitation of unpublished opinions in California courts.NOT TO BE PUBLISHED INTHE OFFICIAL REPORTSCourt of Appeal, Second District, California.DIVISION TWO.AVA NAEINI, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.CONFLUENT INC., Defendant and Respondent.B340756|Filed 1/29/2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of LosAngeles County, Douglas Stern and Stephen P. Pfahler,Judges. Affirmed. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.22STCV21275)Attorneys and Law FirmsAva Naeini, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.Littler Mendelson, Alecia W. Winfield, Anthony G. Ly andHider J. Al-Mashat for Defendant and Respondent.CHAVEZ, J.* * * * * **1 Ava Naeini (appellant), who appears in propria persona,appeals from a judgment entered against her after thetrial court sustained without leave to amend her fourthamended complaint against her former employer, ConfluentInc. (respondent). As appellant fails to show error, we affirmthe judgment.BACKGROUNDAn appellant's brief must contain a summary of significantfacts, limited to matters in the record. (Cal. Rules of Court,rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); see LA Investments, LLC v. Spix (2022)75 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1061.) Appellant's briefs contain nocitations to the record, therefore her factual and proceduralassertions are completely unsupported and are forfeited onappeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [each briefmust “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record bya citation to the volume and page number of the recordwhere the matter appears”]; see Fernandes v. Singh (2017)16 Cal.App.5th 932, 942–943.) Appellant's status as a self-represented appellant does not exempt her from the rules ofappellate procedure. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th1229, 1247 [appellant “is not exempt from [appellate] rulesbecause he is representing himself on appeal in propriapersona”].) As respondent has provided citations to relevantbackground, we provide a brief description of the case history.First three complaints and demurrersOn June 29, 2022, appellant filed her original complaint,asserting 15 causes of action. She alleged it was a personalinjury civil case. It was assigned to Judge Michael E.Whitaker.On August 29, 2022, appellant filed a 93-page first amendedcomplaint for damages, removing four causes of action andadding four new causes of action. On September 28, 2022,respondent demurred and moved to strike appellant's firstamended complaint.On October 6, 2022, the superior court vacated all pendingdates because appellant's case was not a personal injurycase. On October 10, 2022, the case was reassigned to theindependent calendar of Judge Douglas W. Stern. On October25, 2022, respondent refiled its demurrer and motion tostrike. Appellant did not oppose respondent's demurrer ormotion to strike. On November 23, 2022, the court sustainedrespondent's demurrer as to all causes of action and grantedrespondent's motion to strike with leave to amend. The courtnoted appellant “makes a lot of irrelevant or conclusorystatements that do not prove the elements of each causeof action,” and the first amended complaint was “generally
AVA NAEINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONFLUENT INC.,..., Not Reported in... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2ambiguous and unintelligible.” The motion to strike wasgranted on the ground appellant made statements that were“irrelevant or improper” and included “personal attacksagainst other employees” of respondent.On November 30, 2022, appellant filed a 92-page secondamended complaint that identified six causes of action in thecaption but included in the body of the complaint 14 causes ofaction previously alleged. On February 17, 2023, respondentagain demurred. Respondent also moved to strike the secondamended complaint because it contained the same irrelevantand improper allegations as the first amended complaint.Appellant did not oppose the demurrer or motion to strike thesecond amended complaint.*2 On March 21, 2023, the trial court sustainedwithout leave to amend respondent's demurrer to thefollowing causes of action: economic duress; rescissionof contract; intentional infliction of emotional distress;negligent infliction of emotional distress; failure to preventdiscrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation ofGovernment Code section 12940 et seq.; negligence; andnegligent hiring and supervision of employees. The motion tostrike was granted, in part, without leave to amend.The court sustained respondent's demurrer with leave toamend as to the following causes of action: harassment,retaliation, wrongful constructive retaliation, discrimination,defamation, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing,and workplace harassment. The court noted the secondamended complaint was substantially similar to the firstamended complaint and was “exceedingly confusing” and“devoid of the necessary factual allegations to properly pleada claim.”ContinuancesOn March 17, 2023, appellant filed an ex parte applicationfor a 120-day continuance of calendared hearings due toclaimed unavailability. The ex parte application was placedoff calendar by the court due to lack of a declaration of notice.However, the court considered the application on March 21,2023, the same day as the hearing on respondent's demurrer,and granted appellant an approximately 165-day continuance.On July 12, 2023, the court granted appellant's second ex parteapplication for a continuance of calendared hearings.Third amended complaint and demurrerOn September 24, 2023, appellant filed an 87-page thirdamended complaint that alleged seven causes of action for(1) harassment in violation of Government Code section12940 et seq., (2) retaliation in violation of Government Codesection 12940 et seq., (3) wrongful constructive terminationin violation of public policy, (4) discrimination in violationof Government Code section 12940 et seq., (5) defamation,(6) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (7)workplace harassment.On October 16, 2023, respondent demurred to the thirdamended complaint. Respondent argued appellant should notbe granted leave to amend because she exhausted the three-amendment limit set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section430.41, subdivision (e)(1). Respondent moved to strikerepetitive irrelevant and improper allegations. Appellant didnot oppose respondent's motion to strike.On November 14, 2023, the court sustained respondent'sdemurrer with leave to amend as to all of appellant's causesof action except the defamation claim. The demurrer to thedefamation claim was sustained without leave to amend.Respondent's motion to strike was granted in part. The courtnoted, “[m]any of these causes of action are the same as orvery similar to [appellant's] previous iterations of these causesof action.”Case reassignment and motion to challenge the judgeOn January 10, 2024, the superior court notified appellantthat her action, previously assigned to Judge Stern, was nowassigned to Judge Stephen P. Pfahler for all purposes.On April 22, 2024, appellant filed a motion to disqualifyJudge Pfahler pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section170.6. The motion was denied as untimely.On April 24, 2024, appellant filed a motion to disqualifyJudge Pfahler for cause. Appellant's motion was based onher disagreement with the court's ruling on her initial motionto disqualify. The court denied the motion because appellant“disclose[d] no legal grounds for disqualification.” Appellantdid not seek a writ of mandate from the Court of Appealwithin 10 days.Appellant's fourth amended complaint and demurrer*3 On January 16, 2024, appellant filed the operativefourth amended complaint, asserting six causes of actionfor (1) harassment in violation of Government Code section
AVA NAEINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONFLUENT INC.,..., Not Reported in... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.312940 et seq., (2) retaliation in violation of GovernmentCode section 12940 et seq., (3) wrongful constructivetermination in violation of public policy, (4) discriminationin violation of Government Code section 12940 et seq., (5)breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (6)workplace harassment. Instead of removing the dismissedcauses of action and stricken allegations, she used graphicalstrikethroughs to cross out claims and allegations withoutrenumbering her causes of action or the paragraphs of herfourth amended complaint.On February 13, 2024, respondent filed a demurrer.Respondent argued appellant failed to state facts sufficientto constitute causes of action, pled causes of action thatwere barred by the applicable statute of limitations and/orfailed because she did not exhaust administrative remedies,and alleged claims that were ambiguous and uncertain,among other things. Respondent further argued appellant'sunmodified complaint was an admission that she had statedher case as strongly as she could, that no facts couldbe alleged to cure the defects of her complaint, and thatshe had exhausted the three-amendment limit set forth inCode of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (e)(1).Respondent also filed a motion to strike, asserting appellantrequested relief that was not supported by the allegationsand included irrelevant matters. Appellant did not initiallyfile an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. OnApril 30, 2024, respondent filed its notice of nonopposition.Later the same day, appellant filed an untimely, 273-page“amended opposition” and then, on the same day, a 284-page“correction” to her “amended opposition.”Appellant's request for entry of defaultOn March 4, 2024, appellant filed a request for entry ofdefault and judgment against respondent. The request wasproperly rejected by the court clerk because no default orjudgment had been entered by the court.Discovery motionsOn February 27, 2024, respondent filed a motion forprotective order to seek court relief from appellant's 461requests for admissions. The motion for protective order wasscheduled for hearing on July 1, 2024, the trial court's thenearliest available date.On May 7, 2024, appellant filed an untimely motion tocompel responses to requests for production of documentsthat she served on January 19, 2024, and to which respondentresponded on February 20, 2024. Appellant's motion wasscheduled for hearing on August 21, 2024. However, as setforth below, the discovery motions were rendered moot by thecourt's May 9, 2024 order and June 28, 2024 judgment.Trial court ruling on demurrer to fourth amendedcomplaint and judgmentOn May 9, 2024, the court sustained respondent's demurrer toappellant's fourth amended complaint without leave to amend.In a 15-page written ruling, the court carefully consideredappellant's allegations and concluded appellant failed to statefacts constituting each cause of action.The court noted that because of “both the quantity andlateness of the filings,” it was permitted to disregardappellant's opposition documents. However, the court electedto consider appellant's filings.As to appellant's cause of action for harassment in violationof Government Code section 12940 et seq., the trial courtcarefully evaluated appellant's allegations and concludednothing in appellant's allegations supported a claim of directsexual harassment.*4 As to appellant's cause of action for retaliation inviolation of Government Code section 12940 et seq., afterreviewing and quoting extensively from appellant's fourthamended complaint, the court concluded “the assumptionof protected conduct lacks sufficient support.” However,even assuming appellant had sufficiently alleged protectedconduct, the court found a lack of any adverse employmentaction.As to the cause of action for wrongful constructivetermination in violation of public policy, the court notedappellant “both alleges being actually fired, yet allegesconstructive termination. The internal conflict renders theclaim invalid.” The court nevertheless considered appellant'sallegations and found “no actual conduct related to afundamental violation of public policy under the pled facts.”As to the cause of action for discrimination in violationof Government Code section 12940 et seq., the courtquoted substantial portions of the fourth amended complaintand concluded, “assumptions and racial stereotyping ofdifferent ethnicities and opinions of alleged unfair treatmentof immigrant labor in no way demonstrates raciallydiscriminatory conduct. The remainder of the conduct
AVA NAEINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONFLUENT INC.,..., Not Reported in... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4expresses displeasure with work assignments rather thanfactual articulation of wrongful conduct.”As to the cause of action for breach of covenant of goodfaith and fair dealing, the court found the complaint lackedan allegation for “the fundamental basis of the claim—thecontract.”Finally, as to the claim of workplace harassment, the courtfound “the allegations appear to involve claims relating topersonnel decisions for assignment and advancement withoutsufficient factual grounding to [appellant's] gender, raceor nationality as the basis for said harassment other thanaccusations of misogyny.”The court found appellant “effectively concede[d] theinability to ple[a]d any and all of the subject claims after fiveprior attempts.” There had been no material changes to theunderlying facts in the multiple grants of leave. Therefore, thedemurrer to all causes of action was sustained without leaveto amend.Judgment was entered on June 28, 2024. On August 20, 2024,appellant filed her notice of appeal from the judgment.DISCUSSIONI. Applicable law and standard of reviewA trial court's order sustaining a demurrer is reviewed denovo. (Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th1545, 1552.) We treat the demurrer as admitting all factsproperly pleaded, but do not assume the truth of contentions,deductions or conclusions of law. (Ibid.) “In order to prevailon appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer, the appellantmust affirmatively demonstrate error. [T]he appellant mustshow that the facts pleaded are sufficient to establish everyelement of a cause of action and overcome all legal groundson which the trial court sustained the demurrer.” (Intengan v.BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1047,1052.) We will affirm the trial court's ruling if it is correcton any theory, whether or not the trial court relied on propergrounds. (Bower, supra, at p. 1552.)The trial court's denial of leave to amend is reviewed forabuse of discretion. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311,318.) Under this standard, we will not reverse the trialcourt's decision unless there is a clear abuse of discretionand a miscarriage of justice. (Id. at p. 331.) To showan abuse of discretion, the appellant must demonstratea reasonable possibility the pleading can be cured byamendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31Cal.4th 1074, 1081.)*5 A trial court judgment is presumed to be correct, and errormust be affirmatively shown. (Denham v. Superior Court(1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “The appellate court is not requiredto search the record on its own seeking error. If a party fails tosupport an argument with the necessary citations to the record,the argument will be deemed waived.” (LA Investments, LLCv. Spix, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 1061.) To demonstrateerror, the appellant must supply the reviewing court with somecogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation tothe record. (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC(2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 146.) If a party fails to meet theserequirements, its claims are forfeited. (Ibid.)Bearing these standards in mind, we review appellant'sarguments below and conclude she has failed to show error inthe trial court judgment.II. Judicial bias and procedural violationsIn her first argument, appellant claims Judge Stern struckcauses of action without factual or legal basis, disregardedappellant's declaration and exhibits, sustained repeateddemurrers without permitting amendment, and never set adate for a jury trial.Appellant further argues Judge Pfahler denied her motionsto disqualify “despite clear prejudice and lack of familiaritywith the record or experience.” Appellant claims in his finalorder Judge Pfahler used dismissive language and ignoredover 300 pages of evidence without analysis or considerationof appellant's rights.Appellant provides no citations to the record, no legalanalysis, and no legal citations in support of these contentions.Her arguments are forfeited. (United Grand Corp. v. MalibuHillbillies, LLC, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146.)III. Denial of jury trialAppellant argues she paid jury fees in accordance withCode of Civil Procedure section 631. However, the courtnever scheduled the case for a jury trial. Appellant cites“Green v. Casa Santa Fe (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 638” forthe proposition that denial of a jury trial after statutorycompliance is reversible error.
AVA NAEINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONFLUENT INC.,..., Not Reported in... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5The case citation provided is not valid, and the court isunable to locate the purported legal authority cited. Appellantprovides no citations to the record, no legal argument, anda single nonexistent case citation. Her argument is forfeited.(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, supra, 36Cal.App.5th at p. 146.)IV. Dismissal of fourth amended complaintAppellant argues the trial court abused its discretion insustaining the demurrer to the fourth amended complaintwithout leave to amend. Appellant cites Gallin v. Poulou(1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 638 for the proposition that thedismissal focused on exhibit length and redundancy insteadof substance. However, appellant has failed to provide ananalysis of the cited authority or explain how it is relevant tothe trial court's dismissal of her case. She has also failed toprovide citations to the record or legal argument. Her claimis forfeited. (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC,supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146.)V. Ignorance of material evidenceAppellant has attached exhibits to her opening brief andclaims the trial court “failed to consider or reference any of thesubmitted exhibits.” Appellant describes some of the allegedacts in the exhibits, including an individual orchestratinga retaliatory improvement plan, an attack on appellant'smanner of speech and firing her during her birthdayweek, unreasonable rejection of valid business expensesand timesheets, appellant's failure to receive recognition fora project and denial of a promised promotion. Appellantcites Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214Cal.App.3d 590 for the rule that “all pleaded and incorporatedfacts must be accepted as true.” Appellant fails to provide apin cite or explain the relevance of the case.*6 Appellant provides no other legal authority and noreasoned analysis explaining how the exhibits support any ofher causes of action. Appellant fails to discuss the elementsof any cause of action or show how these facts support anycause of action.The record shows the court carefully read and consideredappellant's filing below, issuing a 15-page written orderconsidering each of appellant's causes of action and theallegations supporting them. Appellant fails to reference thetrial court's order or explain how any of the attached exhibitswould change the court's ruling. Under the circumstances,appellant's argument is forfeited. (United Grand Corp. v.Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146.)VI. DiscoveryAppellant contends she served valid discovery responses,which were never answered truthfully, and the court ignoredher motion for sanctions. She further accuses respondent ofengaging in destruction of evidence and faults the court forfailing to compel responses. Appellant fails to provide a singlecitation to the record in support of these claims. She cites“Cavaletto v. Wiesen (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1169,” in supportof her argument. The case does not appear in the Californiareporters.Appellant has provided no record citations, no reasonedargument, and no valid legal authority. Her claim is forfeited.(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, supra, 36Cal.App.5th at p. 146.)VII. Ex parte denialAppellant contends on March 16, 2023, she submitted two exparte applications for a 90-day continuance due to scheduledbrain surgery, which were compliant with the applicablestatutes and were denied without legal justification. Appellantprovides no citation to the record showing such denials. Therecord reveals the trial court granted the two continuancesfiled.Appellant provides no record citations, no legal authority, andno reasoned argument in support of her claim. It is thereforeforfeited. (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC,supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146.)VIII. Discrimination/retaliationAppellant sets forth factual assertions she contends amountto a pattern of discrimination and retaliation. Appellantfails to support her factual contentions with citations to therecord. She further fails to provide legal authority supportingher position that such actions constitute discrimination andretaliation under the law. She fails to provide legal analysisshowing trial court error. For these reasons, the point isforfeited. (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC,supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146.)IX. Perjury/litigation misconduct
AVA NAEINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONFLUENT INC.,..., Not Reported in... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6In her final argument, appellant argues respondent's counselrepeatedly misrepresented facts to the trial court, and the courtadopted these assertions without allowing her to respond. Insupport of her argument, appellant cites Penal Code section118 and “Green v. Casa Santa Fe (2001) 132 Cal.App.4th 97,”which does not appear to be a valid citation.1Appellant fails to support her contentions with citations tothe record. She fails to provide valid legal authority or legalanalysis showing trial court error. For these reasons, the pointis forfeited. (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC,supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146.)*7 Appellant has failed to show her allegations are sufficientto state claims and has failed to establish how she couldhave reasonably amended her fourth amended complaint toallege a viable cause of action. Instead, she attacks the judicialofficers and her opponent and relies upon unsupported claimsof procedural irregularity and misconduct. We find the appealmeritless.DISPOSITIONThe judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded its costs onappeal.We concur:LUI, P. J.SIGGINS, J.*All CitationsNot Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2026 WL 237431Footnotes*Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justicepursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.1We note this case has the same party names, but a different citation, as a case cited earlier in appellant'sopening brief.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access