Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV21625, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV21625    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: 74

Moore v. Shapiro

Defendant Gabriela H. Shapiro’s Demurrer

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Shera Moore (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against the Honorable Gabriela H. Shapiro (Commissioner Shapiro) for conduct surrounding a juvenile case involving Plaintiff’s son. Plaintiff does not allege any specific causes of action.

Commissioner Shapiro demurs to the complaint.

DISCUSSION

             Commissioner Shapiro demurs to Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that (1) the complaint is barred by quasi-judicial immunity, (2) Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Claims Act, and (3) the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The Court sustains the demurrer on all three grounds.

Quasi- Judicial Immunity

            Commissioner Shapiro demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that Commissioner Shapiro has absolute judicial immunity in the exercise of her judicial functions.  (See Mireles v. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9, 11.)  Judicial functions are those which are normally performed by a judge when the parties are interacting with the judge in the judge’s official capacity.  (Stump v. Sparkman (1973) 435 U.S. 349, 362.)  Judicial immunity – or in the case of commissioners, quasi-judicial immunity – extends to all persons who act in a judicial capacity, such as court commissioners.  (Howard v. Darpkin (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843, 852-853.) 

            Plaintiff alleges in her complaint only activities that occurred while Plaintiff was interacting with Commissioner Shapiro in her official capacity. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations relate to judicial functions.  Commissioner Shapiro has absolute immunity for actions taken in her official capacity.  Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer.

Government Claims Act

            The Government Claims Act requires that a claim must be presented to the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action.  (Gov. Code § 911.2(a).)  A plaintiff must first file a government claim with the relevant government entity before bringing a lawsuit against a public employee.  (Gov. code §§ 945.4, 950.2; Watson v. State of California (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 836, 843.)  Compliance with the Government Claims Act must be pled by Plaintiff.  (DiCampli-Mintz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 990.)  Plaintiff does not plead facts demonstrating that she complied with the Government Claims Act.  Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer.

Cause of Action

            Plaintiff’s short complaint consists of one allegation, that Commissioner Shapiro prohibited her from speaking for approximately four months during Plaintiff’s son’s case in Edelman Children’s Court.  These facts are insufficient to state a cause of action.  Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer.

Amend

            Plaintiff must show a reasonable probability of amending the complaint to state a cause of action.  (Goodman, supra, 18 Cal.3d at pp. 348.)  Plaintiff has not opposed this demurrer.  Thus, Plaintiff has not shown a reasonable probability of amending the complaint to state a cause of action.  Therefore, the Court does not grant leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

            The Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend.