Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21SMCV01081, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21SMCV01081 Hearing Date: March 30, 2023 Dept: 207
Background
Plaintiff Cara Sims brings this action against Defendant Santa Monica Community College District
(erroneously sued as “Human resources [sic] Santa Monica College” and
hereinafter “Defendant”) and others alleging discrimination, retaliation, and
harassment in connection with her time as a student at Santa Monica Community
College. Plaintiff’s operative pleading is her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
filed on September 30, 2022. Defendant brings this demurrer to Plaintiff’s
entire FAC arguing it fails to state a cause of action against it because it
fails to plead Plaintiff’s exhaustion of administrative remedies or a statutory
basis for the imposition of direct liability of Defendant, which is a public
entity. Defendant’s demurrer is unopposed.
Legal Standard
Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199
Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent
on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v.
Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the
pleading alone, and not on the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v.
Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such,
the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied
factual allegations. (Id.) However, it does not accept as true
deductions, contentions, or conclusions of law or fact. (Stonehouse Homes
LLC v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, 538.)
The general rule is that the
plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts. (Doe v.
City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “All that is required of a
plaintiff, as a matter of pleading, even as against a special demurrer, is that
his complaint set forth the essential facts of the case with reasonable
precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint the defendant with the
nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Rannard v. Lockheed
Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 156-157.)
Analysis
1. Meet and
Confer Requirement
Before filing a
demurrer, the demurring party is required to “meet and confer in person or by
telephone” with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purposes
of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an
amended pleading to resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.
(C.C.P. § 430.41.) Defendant has not satisfied this requirement.
Defendant’s counsel stated he
tried to call Plaintiff once on January 31, 2023, to discuss the instant
demurrer, but Plaintiff did not pick up the phone. Counsel then made no further
effort to comply with the statutory meet and confer requirement because “Rather
than discuss the matter, [he] felt it was best to move forward and filed the
instant pleading detailing the defects.” (Dumont Decl. at ¶5.) Defendant is not
free to disregard statutory obligations simply because it feels it is best to
do so. Nonetheless the Court
will consider the merits of Defendant’s demurrer. (C.C.P. § 430.41(a)(4).)
2. Claims
against Public Entities
Defendant demurrers to Plaintiff’s
FAC on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to plead her exhaustion of
administrative remedies as required under the Government Claims Act and has not
pled a statutory basis for the imposition of liability against Defendant as a
public entity.
Under the Government Claims Act
(Gov. Code, § 810, et seq.), a claimant may not file a personal injury suit
for money damages against a public entity “unless he or she first presents a written
claim to the entity within six months of the time [his or] her cause of action accrues,
and the entity then denies the claim.” (S.M. v. Los Angeles Unified School District¿(2010)
184 Cal.App.4th 712, 717.) This provides the public entity with an opportunity
to evaluate the claim and make a determination as to whether it will pay on the
claim. (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.)
Failure to timely file a tort claim renders the complaint subject to demurrer.
¿(V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.¿(2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 499,
509 [affirming trial court decision to sustain demurrer without leave to amend
because plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the requirements of the
Government Claims Act barred her action].)
A complaint subject to the Tort
Claims Act must allege facts showing compliance with the act or allege facts
excusing non-compliance. (State v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32
Cal.4th 1234, 1239.) Under¿Government¿Code¿section¿946.6,¿subdivision¿(c), the trial
court must grant relief from the claim requirement “if the claimant demonstrates
by a preponderance of the evidence the application to the public entity ... was
made within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after the accrual of the cause
of action, and one of the other four requirements listed in¿Government¿Code¿section¿946.6,¿subdivision¿(c)¿is
met.” (Munoz v. State of California¿(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1777.)
The four requirements listed at Gov.
Code, section 946.6(c) include: 1) the failure to present the claim was through
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 1) the person who sustained
the alleged injury was a minor during all of the time specified in Section 911.2
for the presentation of the claim; 3) the person who sustained the alleged injury
was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time for the presentation
of the claim and by reason of that disability failed to present a claim during that
time; and 4) the person who sustained the alleged injury died before the expiration
of the time for the presentation of the claim. (Gov. Code, § 946.6(c)(1)-(4).)
Furthermore, direct tort liability
will only lie against public entities where authorized by statute. “[D]irect
tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring
them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on
the general tort provisions of Civil Code section 1714. Otherwise, the general
rule of immunity for public entities would be largely eroded by the routine
application of general tort principles.” (Eastburn v. Regional Fire
Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1183.)
The FAC does not alleged
compliance with the claim requirement of the Government Claims Act and does not
provide a statutory basis for her claims against Defendant. The Court thus
SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC as a whole, but will grant Plaintiff
leave to amend to afford her the opportunity to correct these deficiencies.
Conclusion
Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
is SUSTAINED with 30 days’ leave to amend.