Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV39789, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV39789 Hearing Date: May 16, 2023 Dept: 28
Defendant Antelope Valley Union High School District’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff Ken Ceasar (“Ceasar”) and Brandon Smith-Bailey (“Smith-Bailey”) filed this action against Defendants Antelope Valley Union High School District (“AVUHSD”), Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) and Carmen Dejaune Thomas (“Thomas”) for negligence and negligent hiring, training supervision and retention.
On January 31, 2020, AVUHSD field an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Thomas and Porsha Bryant (“Bryant”) for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief.
On March 4, 2020, LAUSD filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Thomas and Bryant for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief.
On March 30, 2023, AVUSD filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to be heard on April 25, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to May 16, 2023. On May 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On May 9, 2023, AVUSD filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 20, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
AVUSD requests the Court grant judgment on the pleadings as the complaint fails to allege a statutory basis for liability.
Plaintiffs request the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
‘‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and [thus] attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 274.) “In reviewing the motion, [the Court] deem[s] true all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law, and we may also consider judicially noticed matters. [Citation.]” (Bear Creek Master Assn. v. Southern California Investors, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 809, 817.)
According to CCP §439, parties are required to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. “...The moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to judgment and identify with legal support the basis of the claims. The party who filed the pleading shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is not subject to judgment, or, in the alternative, how the pleading could be amended to cure any claims it is subject to judgment.” CCP §439(b).
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) 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.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Id.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)
Government Code § 815.6 provides: “[w]here a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury,
the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty.” To impose a mandatory duty on a public entity, the “mandatory nature of the duty must be phrased in explicit and forceful language;” it is not sufficient to contain just some mandatory language. (Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 887, 910-911.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiffs were high school basketball players attending a school tournament operated by AVUSD. They were playing for Quartz Hill High School (“QHHS”). After playing a game against San Pedro High School (“SPHS”), a LAUSD school, SPHS student Thomas allegedly inexplicably and suddenly attacked Plaintiffs, resulting in injuries to both parties.
The causes of action asserted against AVUSD are negligence and negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention. The complaint does not make any reference to any statutory basis for these causes of action.
In bringing an action against a governmental entity, a plaintiff must clearly state the governmental entity’s mandatory duty by citing to a relevant statute. AVUSD, as a public school district, is considered to be a public or governmental entity. The complaint fails to present a cause of action against AVUSD, as there is no reference to any applicable statute. “The basic architecture of the Act is encapsulated in Government Code 815. Subdivision (a) of that section makes clear that under the GCA, there is no such thing as common law tort liability for public entities…” (Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 798, 803.) Plaintiff failed to plead the statutory basis with particularity, and thus failed to meet the pleading standards in bringing this action against a public entity.
Plaintiffs’ opposition focuses on whether the complaint provides adequate factual basis to bring these claims but does not address the lack of reference to a specific statute. Without a statutory basis, Plaintiffs’ causes of action against AVUSD are deficient. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Antelope Valley Union High School District’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, with 30 days leave to amend.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.