Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case Number: 21STCP03664, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Respondent Department of Social Services and Respondent County of Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services’ (“County”) each demur to the causes of action alleged within the body of the Third Amended Petition (“TAP”).

On November 20, 2001, petitioner Trean Martin pled nolo contendere to two misdemeanor counts of willful cruelty to a child under Penal Code § 273a(b) and Los Angeles Municipal Code § 91.8104.2. (TAP at 18 of 132.) [1] On September 25, 2019, petitioner applied for Resource Family Approval (“RFA”) status so she can care for her grandchild. (TAP at 18, 22.) For petitioner to obtain RFA status, petitioner must obtain a criminal record exemption. (TAP at 3, 12.) The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (“County”) received a request for criminal record exemption on October 3, 2019. (TAP at 12.) On December 20, 2019, County denied petitioner’s applications for RFA and for a criminal record exemption. (TAP at 17.)

Petitioner appealed County’s actions. (TAP at 17.) The hearing on the appeal was held on February 1, 2021, before the California Department of Social Services. (TAP at 17.) On March 10, 2021, administrative law judge Kelly Paur sustained County’s denial of petitioner’s applications because petitioner “did not provide substantial and convincing evidence that she is rehabilitated and of such good character to warrant the county granting her an exemption for his [sic] past criminal convictions.” (TAP at 17, 43, 75.) Petitioner requested a hearing. (TAP at 11.) On April 21, 2021, the request was denied. (TAP at 11.)

On November 8, 2021, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate. On February 22, 2022, petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of mandate.

On March 28, 2022, petitioner filed a second amended petition for writ of mandate. Respondent County demurred to the Second Amended Petition. On October 11, 2022, the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend.

On November 4, 2022, petitioner filed the operative third amended petition for writ of mandate. Both respondents filed demurrers. Petitioner did not file an opposition to either.

Petitioner did not label the causes of action. However, based on the substantive allegations, petitioner appears to allege the following: (1) petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 (TAP at 1); (2) defamation (TAP at 2, 3); and (3) infliction of emotional distress (TAP 3). (See Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 [ascertaining theories of liability based on substantive allegations when causes of action not labeled].) The Court rules on respondents’ demurrers by addressing these three causes of action.

Respondent California Department of Social Services (“State”) demurs to the writ of mandate cause of action on the ground that it is time-barred. State cites CCP § 1094.6(b) for the proposition that the writ cause of action must be filed “not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final.” (CCP § 1094.6(b).)

Because petitioner’s request for a rehearing was denied on April 21, 2021 (TAP at 11), State maintains that the deadline to file a petition for writ of mandate was July 20, 2021. However, the statute of limitations under CCP § 1094.6(b) applies to judicial review of decisions of local agencies, not state agencies. (CCP § 1094.6(a); Hittle v. Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Assn. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 374, 386 [“Section 1094.6 represents the Legislature's response to the disparity between state and local agencies in the time prescribed for seeking judicial review of their administrative decisions”].) Petitioner’s request for rehearing was denied by State, not a local agency. (TAP at 11.) Accordingly, State’s contention that the writ cause of action is time-barred based on CCP § 1094.6(b) must be rejected.

State also argues that individual State employees were misjoined as respondents because the only proper respondent under CCP § 1094.5(a) is “the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer” responsible for the administrative decision. However, no individual respondents have appeared in the instant proceeding. The demurrer does not purport to be filed on behalf of any individual employees. State has no standing to assert on behalf of the individual employees that they were misjoined as respondents.

State also argues that petitioner has not stated a cause of action for defamation or infliction of emotional distress because she has not complied with the Government Tort Claims Act, the facts are insufficient to sustain the two causes of action, and the two causes of action are uncertain. Pursuant to the local rules, which designate that Department 82 is a specialized Writs and Receivers department and not a general civil department, only a cause of action for writ of mandate is properly assigned to this department. (LASC Local Rules 2.8(d) and 2.9.) Local Rules 2.8(d) and 2.9 do not include claims for defamation or infliction of emotional distress as a special proceeding assigned to the writs departments.

Accordingly, the Court does not rule on the demurrer to the defamation and infliction of emotional distress causes of action. The defamation and infliction of emotional distress causes of action against State are stayed pending resolution of the writ cause of action.

Respondent County of Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services’ (“County”) request to take judicial notice of the Third Amended Petition is DENIED as “unnecessary to the resolution” of the issues before the Court. (Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1075.) The Court necessarily considers the Third Amended Petition in ruling on the merits of a demurrer. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [court considers four corners of complaint in a demurrer].)

County contends that the Third Amended Petition is uncertain as to it because petitioner seeks review of an administrative decision made by California Department of Social Services (“State”). The Court agrees. Petitioner alleges that a “state hearing” took place on February 1, 2021. (TAP at 4.) The case number, 104636059, is the same case number reflected on the administrative decision issued by State and attached to the Third Amended Petition. (TAP at 11, 17-43, 75.)

“The purpose of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1094.5 is to inquire into the validity of any Final administrative order.” (State of California v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 245.) Here, the final order to which petitioner objects was issued by State. Demurrers for uncertainty are granted “only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) Because there are no allegations of wrongdoing against County with respect to any final administrative decision, County cannot reasonably respond to the writ cause of action against it.

County also demurs to the defamation and emotional distress causes of action. For the same reasons stated as to State, the Court does not rule on the demurrer to the defamation and emotional distress causes of action. The defamation and emotional distress causes of action against County are stayed pending resolution of the writ cause of action.

County of Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services’ demurrer to the petition for writ of mandate cause of action under CCP § 1094.5 is SUSTAINED.

Respondent California Department of Social Services’ demurrer is OVERRULED. California Department of Social Services is ordered to file an answer to the Third Amended Petition within 10 days hereof.

Respondent County of Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services’ demurrer is SUSTAINED. Considering that the Court previously sustained County’s demurrer to the Second Amended Petition on the ground of uncertainty, that petitioner was unable to remedy this defect in the TAP, and that petitioner has not proffered how she might reasonably cure the defects, the demurrer by County is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

[1] Because the exhibits are not separated and the allegations are not numbered by paragraph, the cited page numbers are as reflected in the electronically filed Third Amended Petition.