Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Slayton v. City of Santa Ana, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED.

Defendants’, City of Santa Ana, Santa Ana Police Department and David Valentin, Demur to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th causes of action of the Second Amended Complaint are SUSTAINED on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. [CCP §430.10(e)] In general, the Second Amended Complaint doesn’t allege facts, as opposed to unsupported conclusions, to support the causes of action. Where facts are alleged, they show that the causes of action cannot be maintained.

The facts alleged in the 1st cause of action for Violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Government Code §3300 et seq. [“POBRA”], are not sufficient to state a cause of action under any section of the Act. As plaintiff admits in his pleading, he was ordered to undergo a fitness for duty examination [“FFDE”] Plaintiff has cited no legal authority supporting his argument that a FFDE is done for the purposes of punishment, as required by Government Code §3303. Instead, as a matter of law, a FFDE is done for the purpose of determining qualification for a public safety position. [Government Code §1031(f)] As the facts are currently alleged, a POBRA claim has not been stated.

Similarly, the facts alleged in the 2nd cause of action for violation of Civil Code §56.10 do not establish that the section applies to defendants. The addition of an “information and belief” allegation that “the City of Santa Ana is self-insured and maintains its own health care service plan for work related injuries” is a conclusion, not a statement of facts showing the existence of a health care service plan. If this section does not apply, none of the other provisions of the act do, either.

Plaintiff still fails to state a cause of action for under the section of the Penal Code and Evidence Code upon which the 3rd cause of action is based. To the extent the allegations are based upon the improper disclosure of documents by defendants, it is alleged that the documents were improperly alleged in this action, which is a public form. The documents are available to plaintiff and the ones that violate the statutes must be identified by category. Plaintiff is reminded that allegations about the nature of the documents must be truthful.

The 5th cause of action for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act fails. It does not allege that the decision to discharge him was because of his disability or that the decision to discharge him because of his disability was a substantial reason for his harm. [See, CACI 2540, elements 6 and 8]

The Court will grant leave to amend one more time and may decline to grant leave to amend a Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has 15 days’ leave to amend.

Moving partyto give notice.