Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV35583, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35583    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 72

DEMURRER

Date:                3/21/23 (9:30 AM)                 

Case:               William E. Jaeger v. County of Los Angeles (22STCV35583)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Demurrer to First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is SUSTAINED.

Defendant County of Los Angeles demurs to the sole cause of action for Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5. Defendant argues that plaintiff William E. Jaeger fails to allege that he had reasonable cause to believe the information he disclosed demonstrated a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation of a local, state, or federal rule or regulation (see Lab. Code § 1102.5(a), (b)) or that defendant retaliated against him for refusing to violate a law (see Lab. Code § 1102.5(c)).

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is based on his alleged retaliatory transfer out of the Professional Standards Division resulting from his report that the tactics used in the execution of a search warrant violated the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) Tactical Operations Policy, as well as his complaints that a new Executive Force Review Committee (“EFRC”) hearing would be in violation of EFRC policies, rules, and/or regulations (FAC ¶¶ 11, 12, 14-17, 20, 29.) Plaintiff maintains that internal LASD policies constitute local rules and regulations under Labor Code § 1102.5. (See Opp. at 8:1-5 [“Plaintiff has already identified the specific rules and regulations of the County of Los Angeles that he reasonably believed were being violated. Specifically, plaintiff complained that the Sheriff’s Department was in violation of the Tactical Operational Policies of the County of Los Angeles and the rules and policies of the Executive Force Review Committee of the County of Los Angeles”].)

However, the violation of internal LASD polices do not constitute local rules or regulations under Labor Code § 1102.5, even though the LASD is a government entity. In Mueller v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 809, the Court of Appeal found that a cause of action based on Labor Code § 1102.5 cannot be based on violations of the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s internal policies. (See Mueller, 176 Cal.App.4th at 822 [“[A]s the county points out in its brief, plaintiff's analysis misses the point of the trial court's statement, which was that this case is not about perceived violations of federal or state statutes, rules or regulations but rather about perceived violations of the department's own policies, which are local policies”].) In Ferrick v. Santa Clara University (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1337, the Court of Appeal found that with respect to a wrongful termination cause of action based on a violation of the public policy reflected in Labor Code § 1102.5(b), violations of university policy are “not sufficient to bring [a] disclosure within a public policy exception to at-will employment.” (Ferrick, 231 Cal.App.4th at 1350.)

Plaintiff does not cite any case supporting his assertion that internal policies constitute local rules and regulations under Labor Code § 1102.5. Plaintiff’s allegation that a new EFRC hearing would violate EFRC rules and/or regulations is merely conclusory and insufficient to withstand demurrer. (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517 [“In determining the merits of a demurrer, all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those that arise by reasonable implication, but not conclusions of fact or law, are deemed admitted by the demurring party”].) Because plaintiff did not allege the violation of a statute, rule, or regulation of which he allegedly disclosed, the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED.

Before deciding whether to allow leave to amend, the Court inquires from plaintiff how the First Amended Complaint can be amended to cure the defect set forth above.