Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 22STCV19192, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19192    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE:                 August 23, 2022

CASE NUMBER:                  22STCV19192

CASE NAME:                        Dr. DeAnn Loughridge v. State of California  

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant, State of California

OPPOSING PARTY:             Plaintiff, DeAnn Loughridge

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set

PROOF OF SERVICE:          OK

MOTION:                               Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint

TENTATIVE:                        Defendant’s Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.  Defendant to give notice.     

Background

This action arises out of the prior litigation of DeAnn Loughridge (“Plaintiff”), based on alleged rulings and comments made by the judge in those proceedings. Plaintiff alleges a violation of her Civil Rights, Conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.

Plaintiff’s claims include comments and rulings made by Judge Leiter in previous litigation involving the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint does not allege specific causes of action.

Defendant State of California now demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion.   

Discussion

I.                   Meet and Confer Efforts

CCP § 430.41(a) provides that a Defendant, prior to filing a demurrer, “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone” with Plaintiff to determine whether an agreement can be reached regarding the objections to be raised in the demurrer. Further, as part of the meet and confer process, the demurring Defendant “shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to the demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.” (CCP § 430.41 (a)(1).) The Plaintiff is then to respond by providing “legal support for its position that the pleading is legally sufficient,” or, alternatively, “how the complaint…could be amended.” (Id.) This meet and confer shall occur “at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due.” (CCP § 430.41(a)(2).) Finally, the demurring Defendant is to file and serve a declaration with the demurrer stating either: 

“(A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer. 

(B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to the demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” 

(CCP § 430.41(a)(3)(A)-(B).) 

Defendant submits the declaration of D.L. Helfat (“Helfat”) to demonstrate that they have fulfilled their statutory meet and confer obligations pursuant to CCP § 430.41 prior to filing the instant demurrer. Helfat attests that they met and conferred “by sending a letter dated July 14, 2022 via overnight mail to the plaintiff, and on July 20, 2022 via telephone call to the telephone number listed on the complaint caption in this case. I spoke with the plaintiff who said she received the letter I sent to her, but we were unable to resolve the matters raised” in this demurrer (Helfat Decl. ¶ 2.)

The Helfat Declaration is sufficient for purposes of CCP § 430.41.  

II.                Legal Authority

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice.  (CCP § 430.30(a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)  The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.”  (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.)  The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . .”  (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525 (Berkley).)  “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.”  (CCP § 452; see also Stevens v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.)  “When a court evaluates a complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable inferences from the facts pled.”  (Duval v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 906.)   

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.)  “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.”  (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848, fn. 3 (Mahan), citing Lickiss v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)  In addition, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, courts strictly construe a demurrer for uncertainty “because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”  (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)   

Demurrers do not lie as to only parts of causes of action where some valid claim is alleged but “must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.”  (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.)  “Generally it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.”  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)   

III.             Analysis

A.     Notice Requirements of Tort Claims Act

Prior to filing a suit against a public entity, a plaintiff must comply with the Government Tort Claims Act, which states, in part: “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 claim for death or injury to person or personal property shall be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.  (Gov. Code, § 911.2(a).) However, a claim “relating to any other cause of action” “shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Id.) When a claim required to be presented pursuant to Gov. Code § 911.2(a) is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.  (Gov. Code, § 911.4(a).)  The application shall be presented to the public entity within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim.  The proposed claim shall be attached to the application.  (Gov. Code, § 911.4(b).) 

The claim presentation requirement is “is not merely procedural, but is a condition precedent to maintaining a cause of action and, thus, is an element of the plaintiff's cause of action.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1236.) A party suing a public entity must allege compliance with this requirement, or that a recognized exception exists. (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374. A party may allege compliance with this requirement by including a general allegation that “he or she timely complied.” (Id.) “If the plaintiff fails to include the necessary allegations, the complaint is subject to attack by demurrer.” (Id.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred in its entirety due to Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act by failing to allege completion of the government claim process and failing to show the filing of a timely government claim. (Motion, 5.)

Plaintiff’s opposition and untimely “Amended Response” does not address these claims.

In reply, Defendant further correctly shows the demurrer to be timely filed as of July 22, 2022 based on the proof of substituted service date on June 21, 2022. (Reply, 1-2.)

The court agrees with Defendant and finds the Complaint to be insufficiently pled with regards to compliance with the Government Claims Act. As such, the court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the entire Complaint.

In the alternative, liberally construing the allegations of the Complaint in favor of Plaintiff, the court finds that the Defendant’s contentions regarding judicial immunity, judicial branch entity, and failure to state a basis for liability against the State of California to be correct. (Demurrer, 4-6.) This lawsuit is barred by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, since it attacks clerks’ and judges’ judicial and quasi-judicial actions. (Howard v. Drapkin (1999) 222 Cal.App.3d 843, 852-853.) 

“The board shall provide forms specifying the information to be contained in claims against the state or a judicial branch entity. The person presenting a claim shall use the form in order that his or her claim is deemed in conformity with Sections 910 and 910.2. A claim may be returned to the person if it was not presented using the form. Any claim returned to a person may be resubmitted using the appropriate form.” (Gov. Code § 910.4.) Claims against the State of California must be submitted to the Department of General Services. (Gov. Code §§ 905.2, 915(b).) Plaintiff has failed to allege she has done so.

For these reasons, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend.

Conclusion

Defendant’s demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Defendant is to give notice.