Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00285, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00285    Hearing Date: February 20, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

B.S. v. LAUSD, Case no. 24SMCV00285

Hearing date February 20, 2025

Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to Amend Opposition to Demurrer

Plaintiff Selem, on behalf of his minor son B.S., sued defendants LAUSD and superintendent Carvalho for violation of parental rights, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision. Plaintiff’s claims arise from an LGBT flag in B.S.’s classroom; plaintiff Selem sought to discuss its implications and/or removal with the teacher and school administrators. In the course of those discussions, Selem alleges a classroom speaker, Brooks, insulted Selem and B.S., causing emotional distress and harm.

Plaintiff filed a Government Tort Act claim 3/30/23. Defendants demurred and moved to strike portions of the FAC under anti-SLAPP law. The court took the matters under submission 9/19/24. See Min. Order 9/19/24. The court ordered supplemental briefing on the Tort Act claim 6-month lookback window 10/14/24. See Min. Order 10/14/24. Plaintiff, now in pro per, requests leave to supplement and amend the 9/4/24 opposition to the demurrer.

Plaintiff’s government tort act claim was filed 3/20/23. Supp. Brief 3:6; decl. Carvalho para. 7; exh. A. The 6-month lookback window began running 9/30/22. Supp. Brief 2:20-21; decl. Carvalho para. 7; exh. A. The court is thus jurisdictionally unable to consider events prior to 9/30/22.

Plaintiff argues he previously requested additional time to oppose the demurrer to correct filings by his prior counsel. Plaintiff argues prior counsel failed to seek extensions as directed, introduce “critical documentary evidence” or address critical issues. These arguments are unavailing; there is no basis to amend an opposition filed and considered over five months ago. Further, the evidence plaintiff argues should be considered, an email from the principal of B.S.’s school stating “what was said in class was inappropriate” is insufficient on its own to sustain plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff argues he did not learn of Brooks’ speech to the class until 10/14/22, so plaintiff’s claims did not accrue until discovery on 10/14/22. This is unavailing; the government tort claim act establishes a deadline. When plaintiff discovered the tort is irrelevant; only the date of occurrence is relevant. Brooks’ speech occurred 9/27/22. Supp. Brief 2:17-18; decl. Selem paras.7-8. Brooks’ speech falls outside the 6-month lookback window. The only evidence the court can consider are emails and meetings between plaintiff and school staff regarding plaintiff’s discontent with the flag, his frustration with Brooks’ speech and plaintiff’s alleged panic attach. Decl. Heidi Selem paras. 6-10.

There is no basis for the court to consider these arguments nor basis to grant leave to amend the opposition. DENIED.