Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 24STCV23170, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV23170    Hearing Date: January 7, 2025    Dept: 76

            Plaintiff alleges that he accrued $9,000 in parking tickets and when he attended a city hall meeting to have the tickets dismissed, where he also presented solutions for various problems, and wanted a new law to not give delivery drivers tickets. Plaintiff alleges infliction of emotional distress due to the numerous parking tickets which have impacted his financial condition. He also alleges that the homeless situation caused him emotional distress when he worked as hotel concierge, and the failure to fix potholes which caused Plaintiff’s car damage. Plaintiff also alleges that the conditions at the city dog shelters and school shootings have caused him emotional distress.

Defendant City of Los Angeles demurs to the Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING          

            Defendant City of Los Angeles’ demurrer to the entire Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff is given 30 days’ leave to amend.

ANALYSIS

Demurrer

Meet and Confer

            The Declaration of Carr A. Tekosky indicates that Defendant’s counsel satisfied the meet and confer effort set forth in Civ. Proc. Code, § 430.41.

Discussion

Defendant City of Los Angeles demurs to the Complaint as follows:

1.         Entire Complaint.

            Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to allege a statutory basis of liability against Defendant.

Of course there is no common law tort liability for public entities in California; such liability is wholly statutory.  (Citations omitted.)  Under the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code section 810 et seq., “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute … [¶] … [a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.” (Gov. Code, § 815, subd. (a).) Government Code section 815 thus “abolishes all common law or judicially declared forms of  liability for public entities, except for such liability as may be required by the state or federal constitution.” (Legis. Com. com., 32 West's Ann. Gov. Code (1995 ed.) foll. § 815, p. 167.)

. . . Consequently, the Public Entity Defendants may be held liable only if there is a statute subjecting them to civil liability. (Citation omitted.) In the absence of such a statute, a public entity's sovereign immunity bars the suit. (Citation omitted.)

(In re Groundwater Cases (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 659, 688.)

            The Complaint does not set forth a statutory basis for liability against Defendant. Although Plaintiff argues in the Opposition that the City is negligent, Plaintiff does not cite a statutory basis for this theory.

            The demurrer to the entire Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Plaintiff is given 30 days’ leave to amend.