Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV36167, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36167    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 68

BACKGROUND:     This is a child sexual assault case.

TIMELINE:

MOVING PARTY argues:  Plaintiff does not and cannot state facts sufficient to comprise causes of action because the California legislature’s elimination of the requirement that Plaintiff present a pre-litigation government tort claim in connection with her claims based on childhood sexual assault arising from conduct occurring prior to 2009 is an unauthorized creation of government liability. It is also unconstitutional under Article XVI, Section 6 of the California Constitution, which prohibits appropriations of public funds to compensate plaintiffs for un-enforceable claims having no public purpose.

RESPONDING PARTY argues: LAUSD ignores Coats v. New Haven Unified School (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 415, which holds that Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1 is constitutional and that victims of childhood sexual abuse need not present government tort claims. No case has held that the revival of a stale or lapsed claim equates to an appropriation of public funds.

IN REPLY, MOVING PARTY argues: Coats v. New Haven Unified School (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 415 did not involve, address, or make any finding at all regarding the prohibition against gifts of public funds and dealt solely with conduct that occurred after 2009, thus not implicating the challenged retroactive elimination of California Tort Claims Act requirements for pre-2009 conduct.

LEGAL STANDARD: A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the functional equivalent to a general demurrer. (Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. of Am. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198.) Like demurrers, motions for judgment on the pleadings challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not their veracity. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice of 1) Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Requirements from the LAUSD website, 2) Child Abuse Awareness Training Printout from the LAUSD website.

MEET AND CONFER: The motion for judgment on the pleadings is not accompanied by the declaration of¿defense counsel and thus does not satisfy the meet and confer requirements. (Code Civ. Pro., § 439, subd. (a).) Nevertheless, as this is not a basis to deny the motion, the Court will address the merits.

DISCUSSION: Plaintiff sues LAUSD for (1) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention of Unfit Employee; (2) Failure to Report Suspect Child Abuse; and (3) Negligent Supervision of Minor.

The crux of LAUSD’s motion is that the California legislature, without authorization, eliminated the requirement that Plaintiff present a pre-litigation government tort claim in connection with her claims based on childhood sexual assault arising from conduct occurring prior to 2009 and without authorization, created government liability. LAUSD asserts that the legislature lacks power to create liability against the state for any past act of negligence when there was no enforceable claim against the public entity at the time of the past act, citing Chapman v. State (1893) 104 Cal. 690, 693 and Heron v. Riley (1930) 209 Cal. 507, 518.

Here, however, the legislature does not create any liability against LAUSD where none existed based on the theories of Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention and Negligent Supervision of Minor. Government Code section 815.2, which states that public entities are vicariously liable for the injuries proximately caused by an act or omission of their employees, was enacted in 1963 and became effective in 1964. Plaintiff’s injuries allegedly occurred in 1972.

However, the same is not true with regard to the claim under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act mandated that LAUSD’s agents and employees report child abuse and neglect starting in 1987 at the earliest. (Pen. Code, § 1165.7.)

Because LAUSD’s constitutionality argument is based on the enforceability of the three causes of action, which has been discussed above, the constitutionality argument is moot.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the Court grants LAUSD’s motion for Failure to Report Suspect Child Abuse cause of action and denies it for the other two causes of action. The Court does not grant leave to amend. (Gami v. Mullikin Medical Ctr. (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 870, 876.)