Judge: Erick L. Larsh, Case: 2021-01230134, Date: 2023-06-15 Tentative Ruling

Defendant City of Santa Ana’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is sustained with leave to amend. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).)

The demurrer on the basis of uncertainty and other action pending is overruled.

The general demurrer is sustained as to each cause of action. The Association fails to allege facts as to associational standing. (See Hunt v. Wash. Apple Advertising Com. (1977) 432 U.S. 333, 343, Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1515, 1521-1522.)

Additionally, the 1st-3rd Causes of Action are barred by the holding in (See Rosales v. City of L.A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 419, 428.)

As for the 4th cause of action;

“A complaint alleging a violation of sections 3500 to 3511 is an unfair practice charge. The PERB has exclusive jurisdiction to make an initial determination as to whether such charges are justified and, if so, the appropriate remedy. (§ 3509, subd. (b); County of Los Angeles, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 916, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 481, 301 P.3d 1102 [PERB has “exclusive initial jurisdiction over complaints alleging unfair labor practices violating the MMBA”].)”

(See Ass’n of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 918, 935.)

The FAC fails to allege that plaintiffs have obtained an initial determination from the PERB as to whether the violations of Gov. Code §§ 3500(a), 3502, 3503, 3506, and 3506.5 are justified.

The court declined to consider paragraph 9 exhibit D to defendant’s counsel’s declaration. (See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within ten days. The court is disinclined to grant further leave to amend.

Motion No. 2. Motion to Strike.

Defendant City of Santa Ana’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ FAC is denied as moot, based upon the court’s ruling on defendants’ demurrer.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.