Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV06765, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06765    Hearing Date: September 25, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Alyssa M. Coley—appearing in pro per—sues Defendants “Attorney General,” Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, and Does 1 to 2 pursuant to a May 12, 2023 First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging putative claims of: (1) Cal. Civ. Code 52(b)(3); (2) Title VI of Civil Rights Act; (3) 18 USC 242 of Title 18; (4) Cal. Civ. Code 425.16 (a)(b)(2)(c)(a)(e); and (5) Unconstitutional Policing.

The FAC is made on Judicial Council form PLD-C-001 and fails to attach papers or provide facts explaining the grounds for these putative claims.

The action was originally assigned to Department 30 and was then transferred to Department 17, Department 11, and Department 1 before being reassigned to Department 40 on April 28, 2023.

On July 5, 2023, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (the LASD; named in the FAC as Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department) demurred to the FAC on the grounds of failure to comply with the mandatory statutory time of the California Tort Claims Act, sufficiency and uncertainty in pleading, and legal immunity.

The demurrer attaches a declaration from counsel representing that the LASD mailed a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff Coley on June 28, 2023 and that Plaintiff Coley failed to respond to that letter by the time the demurrer was filed.

On August 28, 2023, the Court held an Order to Show Cause re Failure to File Proof of Service and Case Management Conference in this action. Plaintiff Coley did not make an appearance. The minutes for the hearing note the upcoming hearing on the LASD’s demurrer.

That same day, Plaintiff Coley made a request from the Clerk for copies of, among other things, the LASD’s demurrer and its attached declaration.

However, Plaintiff Coley has failed to oppose the LASD’s demurrer.

The LASD has not filed a reply or notice of non-opposition relating to its demurrer.

The LASD’s demurrer is now before the Court.

Demurrer

Demurrer Sufficiency Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; see Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) This device can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a [general] demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) In testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67.) A demurrer, however, “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228, disapproved on other grounds, Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1162.) The face of the complaint includes exhibits attached to the complaint. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence. (Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in White v. Cridlebaugh (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 506, 521.)

Order Sustaining Demurrer: MOOT [Court STRIKES FAC].

The Court initially notes that it is unclear whether the LASD has received a copy of the FAC that contains an attachment advancing allegations that support Plaintiff Coley’s claims. The LASD’s June 28, 2023 meet and confer letter and its demurrer make arguments on the merits, which indicate to the Court that the LASD may have a more complete copy of the FAC, where the FAC filed with the Court is comprised of a two-page Judicial Council form pleading with no attachments.

However, the Court, of its own motion, STRIKES Plaintiff Coley’s FAC. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b) [“The court may, … at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper” “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state”].) This is because the Court determines that the FAC is not drawn in conformity with the laws of the State of California insofar as the FAC does not properly contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause[s] of action [pleaded in the FAC], in ordinary and concise language,” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10, subdivision (a)(1). (See FAC generally; see also Coyne v. Krempels (1950) 36 Cal.2d 257, 262 [“If the pleadings are insufficient, the defect may be raised by demurrer or motion to strike, or by motion for judgment on the pleadings”].) Neither does the record reflect the filing of some other paper that was supposed to be attached to the FAC and shows the factual grounds on which Plaintiff Coley rests her claims. 

Conclusion

Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is MOOT.

The Court STRIKES Plaintiff Alyssa M. Coley’s First Amended Complaint because it is not drawn in conformity with the laws of the State of California.

Plaintiff Alyssa M. Coley is granted 30 days’ leave to amend her pleadings.

The Court refers Plaintiff Alyssa M. Coley to the Los Angeles Law Library, which assists pro per parties in litigation efforts.