Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV02545, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV02545 Hearing Date: May 7, 2024 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF EL MONTE TO PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED 15 days leave to amend.
Background
This is a negligence case. Plaintiff RANDAL WILLIAMS alleges
the following against Defendants CITY OF EL MONTE (“City”); COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES (“County”); LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT (“Sheriff’s Department”);
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION (“CDCR”): Plaintiff’s
ankle monitor caused him pain. When Plaintiff went to have the ankle monitor
removed, Defendants cut and/or punctured Plaintiff’s leg. (See Complaint p. 6.)
On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit for:
On January 12, 2024, the City filed a demurrer.
On January 29, 2024, the court held a proceeding re: Failure
to File Proof of Service; Case Management Conference (on the County and
Sheriff’s Department). According to the minute order, “Plaintiff's Counsel informs the Court that they
will most likely Dismiss the City of El Monte.”
On February 13, 2024, the court’s tentative on the City’s
demurrer was to sustain it with leave to amend, but that same day, Plaintiff
dismissed the City.
On March 29, 2024, CDCR filed the instant demurrer.
Discussion
As a prefatory matter, the court previously sustained the
City’s demurrer (now dismissed) and noted that Plaintiff failed to meet and
confer in good faith despite the City’s Counsel’s multiple attempts to contact
Plaintiff’s Counsel. Now, while Plaintiff’s Counsel has responded to
CDCR Counsel’s emails and calls, the parties were not able to reach an
agreement. If Plaintiff’s Counsel disputed the merits of the demurrer (hence,
not being able to reach an agreement), it is unclear why no opposition was
filed. Accordingly, now, on two occasions, the courts intervention was needed
because Plaintiff’s Counsel failed to meet and confer in good faith (i.e.,
whether failed to respond or failed to advance meritorious legal arguments and
authority).
Thus,
should a subsequent motion or demurrer be filed, the court orders Plaintiff’s
Counsel to respond, in writing, to Defense Counsel’s meet and confer email(s) by
stating the arguments and legal authority that support Plaintiff’s position.
This correspondence shall be provided as an attachment in a subsequent motion
or demurrer.
Turning to the demurrer, CDCR demurs on the grounds that the
complaint does not plead a statutory basis for the causes of action. The court
agrees.
Here, per the Government Claims Act, since CDCR is a public
entity, it is immune from common law causes of action, except as otherwise
provided by statute. To the extent that Plaintiff may argue that Civil Code
section 1714 provides a statutory basis for his 1st COA for general
negligence, that is not so as Civil Code section 1714 only imposes a general
duty of care. (See Demurrer p. 3, citing Eastburn v. Regional Fire
Protection Authority (2003) Cal.4th 1175, 1183.) The 2nd COA for
negligent hiring and supervision equally fails for the failure to plead a
statutory imposed duty. (Demurrer p. 3, citing de Villers v. Cnty. of San
Diego (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 238, 255–56.)
All in all, the demurrer is granted because Plaintiff has
not pled any statutory basis upon which liability could be imposed.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained with leave
to amend.