Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV23401, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23401    Hearing Date: April 24, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff David Lee Terrell filed this employment discrimination complaint against Defendant Alhambra Unified School District (AUSD). Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on February 23, 2024. The SAC adds Defendants Carlos Carillo, an individual named Robert, Steve Ballesteros, Stacie Colmon, and John Scanlan.

            On March 19, 2024, Defendant AUSD filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike. Plaintiff filed his opposition on April 1, 2024. Defendant filed its reply on April 17, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Ibid.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part of that pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike (1) any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and (2) all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Id., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., § 437.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) The Court notes that Defendant has complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See Frontman Decl.)

DISCUSSION

I. Statute of Limitations

            Plaintiff bases his causes of action on violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A civil suit under Title VII must be filed within 90 days of a notice of right to sue from the EEOC. (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f).) Exhibit C to the SAC indicates that the EEOC issued a right to sue notice on May 19, 2022. EEOC sent a reminder of the notice on September 23, 2022. The Civil Rights Department also issued a right to sue letter on October 5, 2022. This action was filed more than 90 days after any of the above dates. Therefore, the discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent claims are time-barred. Plaintiff does not address this defect in his opposition.

II. Government Claims Requirement

Under the Government Tort Claims Act, “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . . .” (Gov. Code, § 945.4.) A plaintiff must file a lawsuit within six months after notice of the board’s action on their claim. (Id., § 945.6.) “[F]ailure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.” (Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 211, 218.)

The SAC contains no allegations supporting this requirement, and Plaintiff ignores this defect in his opposition. Therefore, the emotional distress, breach of contract, and defamation claims fail as a matter of law.

III. Punitive Damages

            Because all of Plaintiff’s causes of action fail as a matter of law, Plaintiff necessarily fails to state a basis for punitive damages.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant AUSD’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The motion to strike is GRANTED without leave to amend.