Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV13981, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling
Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.
Case Number: 22STCV13981 Hearing Date: May 23, 2023 Dept: 52
Defendant State
of California by and through the Department of Health Care Services’ Demurrer
and Motion to Strike
Demurrer
Defendant State of
California by and through the Department of Health Care Services demurs to the
entire complaint by plaintiffs Christopher A. Altounian, Maria Margarita
Carranza, and Luis H. Carranza.
The court notes
that the first named plaintiff, Christopher A. Altounian, applied for a fee
waiver, which was denied. He did not
timely pay the filing fee, so the complaint was voided as to him under
Government Code § 68634(g).
Summary of Complaint
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges a dispute between
plaintiffs and the California Health and Human Services Agency regarding the
In-Home Supportive Services (IHHS) program.
Under that program, the State pays or paid Altounian to serve as an
in-home caretaker for the Carranzas. The
complaint alleges the State failed to pay Altounian $17,000 it owes to
him.
Based on these factual allegations, the complaint
asserts various tort causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) check fraud, (3)
conspiracy to commit misappropriation of government issued funding, (4) IHHS
dismissal fraud, and (5) “infliction injuries.”
Attachments to the complaint also assert causes of action for common
counts and general negligence.
Sovereign Immunity
Sovereign immunity bars each of the complaint’s causes
of action against the State of California by and through the Department of
Health Care Services. “[A]ll government
tort liability must be based on statute.”
(County of San Bernardino v. Superior Court (2022) 77
Cal.App.5th 1100, 1107.) “ ‘[S]overeign
immunity is the rule in California; governmental liability is limited to
exceptions specifically set forth by statute.’ ” (Id. at p. 1108.) For example, Government Code section 835 provides
that “a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of
its property” in certain circumstances.
Plaintiffs do not identify any authorizing statute that
would make the State of California liable for the various torts alleged in the
complaint.
Moreover, the Government Code expressly provides immunity
for fraud. “A public entity is not
liable for an injury caused by misrepresentation by an employee of the public
entity, whether or not such misrepresentation be negligent or intentional.” (Gov. Code, § 818.8.) Plaintiffs allege various forms of
intentional misrepresentation or concealment.
The State and its executive agencies cannot be liable for those torts.
Government Claims Act
Plaintiffs’ complaint also fails because it does not
allege plaintiffs timely complied with the Government Claims Act. Under that law, a plaintiff must present any
claim for damages against the government before bringing a civil action. (Gov. Code, § 905; City of Stockton v.
Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 737–738.) “ ‘Claims for personal injury must be
presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action,
and claims relating to any other cause of action must be filed within one year
of the accrual of the cause of action.’ ”
(Willis v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1104,
1118.) “With certain exceptions
[citation], the timely filing of a written government claim is an element that
a plaintiff is required to prove in order to prevail on his or her cause of
action.” (Id. at p. 1119.)
The complaint does not allege plaintiffs presented a
claim to the State of California or the Department of Health Care Services for
the damages they seek. Doing so was
required under the Government Claims Act.
Plaintiffs’ complaint therefore fails to allege sufficient facts to
constitute a cause of action against the State.
Motion to Strike
Defendant State of California by and through the
Department of Health Care Services moves to strike the complaint’s exemplary
damages attachment (form PLD-PI-001(6)).
A party may move to strike a “demand for judgment requesting relief not
supported by the allegations of the complaint.”
(CCP § 431.10(b)(3).) Courts may strike allegations related to exemplary
or punitive damages when the plaintiff cannot recover them. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157
Cal.App.3d 159, 164.)
Punitive damages are not available against public
entities. “Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under
Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other damages imposed primarily for the sake
of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Gov. Code, § 818.) The State of California by and through the
Department of Health Care Services is a public entity. It cannot be liable for punitive damages.
After a successful challenge to the pleadings, where
“there is a reasonable possibility that the defects can be cured by amendment,
leave to amend must be granted.” (Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75
Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) Leave to amend
should be denied where “no liability exists under substantive law.” (Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985)
163 Cal.App.3d 431, 436.) As a matter of
substantive law, the State of California cannot be liable for exemplary
damages. The court therefore will grant
the motion to strike without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs’ Request for Entry of Default
Plaintiffs argue this demurrer and motion to strike
are untimely. Plaintiffs contend the
clerk should have granted their request for entry of defendant’s default. (Plaintiffs did not file proof of serving
these papers on defendant.)
The clerk properly rejected entry of this defendant’s
default. The clerk’s notice of rejection
dated March 24, 2023, gives several reasons: “All
Plaintiffs must be named on Section 1b. Proof
of Service filed on March 01 2023. Section
3a Only one named Defendant and no Does can be named. Defendants to be served separately. Authorized Agent or Authorized to Accept must
be named. Security not acceptable. If full name not presented must have 5
Physical Descriptions for Joe. Manner of
Service not clear it states it was substituted and Personal was attached to it
as well. Proof of Mailing required for
Substituted Service. Amendment to
Complaint must be served to Defendant along with Summons and Complaint.”
Plaintiffs never filed valid proof of service
of summons on defendant State of California by and through the Department of
Health Care Services. Plaintiffs have
filed three proofs of service of summons in this action. First, on June 13, 2022, plaintiffs filed
proof of personal service on a different defendant. The proof of service does not identify the
party served (¶ 3.a) but indicates service was made at the address of the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles.
Second, on July 8, 2022, plaintiffs filed
proof of service purporting to serve “CA Health/Human Services Legal Department
at DHCS Office of Legal Services” by mail and acknowledgment of receipt of
service under Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30. That method of service requires return of a
signed acknowledgment of receipt of summons on the mandatory Judicial Council
of California form POS-015. Plaintiffs
did not file that. Plaintiffs instead
attached only a receipt showing they paid the United States Postal Service for
express mail.
Finally, on March 1, 2023, plaintiffs
filed proof of service of summons on “CA Health/Human Svcs.; D-IHHS; Does 1-10”
by serving “Joe / Security” at 1501 Capital Ave., Sacramento, California
95814. As the clerk stated, this proof
of service is invalid for several reasons.
It does not show plaintiffs caused substituted service on “the person
who is apparently in charge” of defendant’s office as required. (CCP § 415.20(a).) It does not state the process server “thereafter
mail[ed] a copy of the summons and complaint.”
(Ibid.)
Moreover, this proof of service does not
clearly indicate that plaintiffs served this defendant, the State of California
by and through the Department of Health Care Services. Section 3.a of the proof of service indicates
the party served was “CA Health/Human Svcs.; D-IHHS; Does 1-10.” Plaintiffs did not attempt to name the
Department of Health Care Services as a defendant until March 24, 2023. On that day, they submitted an amendment to complaint
seeking to correct the incorrect name “CA Dept Health/Human
Svcs.” to “CA Dept of Health Care Services.”
As the form states, correcting a defendant’s name requires a court
order. Amending
a complaint by “correcting a mistake in the name of a party” requires leave of
court. (CCP § 473(a)(1).) The court did not sign that proposed order.
This demurrer and motion to strike are
timely because plaintiffs never showed valid proof of service of summons on defendant
State of California by and through the Department of Health Care Services.
Disposition
Defendant State of California by and
through the Department of Health Care Services’ demurrer to the entire
complaint is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend.
Defendant
State of California by and through the
Department of Health Care Services’ motion to strike is granted without leave to amend. The
court hereby strikes the complaint’s entire exemplary damages
attachment (form PLD-PI-001(6)) without leave to amend.