Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 22STCV08032 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Tentative Ruling: The Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. The Complaint is ordered dismissed.

In this case for libel against the California Department of Transportation (Defendant or Caltrans), Mohammad Toosi (Plaintiff or Toossi) alleges that several employees sent defamatory e-mails to his supervisor. These e-mails claim, for example, that Toossi was “mentally and emotionally unstable” and that he might “do something crazy physically.” Toossi asserts these e-mails caused him to fail his one-year probationary period as a new employee.

Caltrans demurs to the Complaint, arguing that Toossi failed to comply with the Government Claims Act and did not allege sufficient facts. Defendant’s counsel’s declaration satisfies the meet and confer requirement. (Hnatiuk Decl., ¶ 2.) The request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff opposes the demurrer. He argues there is no claim requirement that he must file for his libel case. Defendant’s reply reiterates the moving paper’s arguments.[1]

As Toossi has failed to show compliance with the Government Claims Act and can no longer request leave to file a late claim, the Court sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.)

Government Code section 815 bars Plaintiff’s common law defamation suit.

The California Tort Claims Act bars liability against public agencies and their employees except as specifically provided by statute. (Gov. Code, § 815.) “[T]here is no common law tort liability for public entities in California; instead, such liability must be based on statute.” (Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Cal.4th 887, 897.)

Toosi does not provide any statutory basis upon which he is suing Caltrans. In opposition to the demurrer, he merely argues that Caltrans is corrupt. Libel is historically a “common law” cause of action. (See Dickinson v. Cosby (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 655, 691.) As Toosi’s claim is based on common law tort principles and he fails to allege any statutory violation, the demurrer is sustained.

All claims for money or damages against the state generally must be presented to the state within six months of accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code, §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2.) This is mandatory and “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented.” (Id. at § 945.4; Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374; Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 767; see also State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 [“We conclude that failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action”].) A claim against the state shall be presented to the Department of General Services. (Gov. Code, § 915, subd. (b)(1)-(2).)

In his Complaint, Toosi avers to filing a claim with the “appropriate public entities” and names the Equal Opportunity Office of Caltrans and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing; however, he does not allege to have filed a claim with the Department of General Services. (See Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1, ¶ 3.) Toosi seemingly admits that he failed to do so in his opposition to the demurrer by contending that “the statute of limitations under the government section [of the California courts website] does not mention a claim must be filed with the government office or agency for a libel or slander case.” This was a mistaken interpretation. Libel is defined under Civil Code section 45, in Part 2 for “Personal Rights” and is defined as a “false and unprivileged publication . . . which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. (Italics added.)

Because Toosi has not pled compliance with the Government Claims Act by properly submitting his claim to the proper agency, the demurrer is also sustained on this ground.

After a court sustains a demurrer, the burden is on the plaintiff to show how the complaint can be amended and the legal effect of the amendment on the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)

Generally, a claim must be presented to the Department of General Services “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).)

Here, Plaintiff allegedly discovered the defamatory e-mails “[o]n or about the third week of March 2021.” If Plaintiff did not file his claim letter, then doing so now would be untimely because it has been more than six months since March 2021. In addition, Plaintiff cannot apply for leave to present a late claim because it has exceeded “one year after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (b).) Accordingly, his claim is time-barred. (Save Lafayette Trees v. City of Lafayette (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 148, 154 [“Leave to amend should not be granted if the pleadings disclose the action is barred by a statute of limitations”].)

Plaintiff’s citation to Manguso v. Oceanside Unified School District (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 725 does not assist him. That case applied the discovery rule to a defamation claim. It did not discuss the statutory claim presentation requirements.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. The Complaint is therefore dismissed with prejudice.

[1] Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s response is untimely, but there is no prejudice because Defendant filed a substantive reply. (See Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.)