Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 23CHCV02373, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV02373, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02373 Hearing Date: May 16, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 5-16-24

Case #23CHCV02373, Alfonso Star vs. San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center, Inc., et al.

Trial Date: N/A

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTIES: No response has been filed

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer

· Entire First Amended Complaint

· First Cause of Action for Kidnapping

· Second Cause of Action for Fraud

· Third Cause of Action for Concealment

· Fourth Cause of Action for Negligence

· Fifth Cause of Action for Wrongful Imprisonment

· Sixth Cause of Action for Personal Injury

· Seventh Cause of Action for Emotional Stress and Duress

· Eighth Cause of Action for Loss of Personal Property

· Ninth Cause of Action for Loss of Income

· Tenth Cause of Action for Loss of Time Div. 50 Program

· Eleventh Cause of Action for Loss of Record Correction Under Diversion 50 Program

· Twelfth Cause of Action for Conversion

RULING: Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

From Plaintiff Alfonzo Star’s (Plaintiff) complaint, it appears that he is alleging that Defendant San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center, Inc. (Defendant) or the other named defendants made false representations to a judge regarding Plaintiff’s participation in a diversion program. Defendant provides rehabilitation services in connection with a diversion program. Plaintiff alleges that though he was in compliance with the reporting requirements of the program, Defendant reported to the court that he was not in compliance. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, he was remanded to jail. His alleged damages are a result of that incarceration.

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint. This Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s entire complaint with leave to amend on January 29, 2024. On April 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC). Plaintiff filed his complaint with causes of action for kidnapping, fraud, concealment, negligence, wrongful imprisonment, personal injury, emotional distress and duress, loss of personal property, loss of income, loss of time Div. 50 program, and coercion.

Defendant filed its demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC on April 17, 2024. No opposition has been filed.

ANALYSIS

Defendant brings a demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC on the basis that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action and is uncertain. Defendant also demurs on the basis that the FAC is barred by the Civ. Code § 47 litigation privilege.

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.) “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.) 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.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

Demurrer Based on Litigation Privilege

Defendant demurs to the complaint on this basis that it is barred by the litigation privilege from Civ. Code § 47 due to Plaintiff’s apparent allegations that someone employed by Defendant made false representations to a judge. Civ. Code § 47(b)(2) protects statements made during judicial proceedings.

The litigation privilege has been held to be absolute and broadly applied with all doubts resolved in favor of the privilege. (Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 211, 215; Kashian v. Harriman (2002) 98 Cal.App,4th 892, 913 [“Any doubt about whether the privilege applies is resolved in favor of applying it. [Citation.]”].) The California Supreme Court has held that the litigation privilege is quite extensive and even extends beyond the courthouse doors. (Jacob B. v. County of Shasta (2007) 40 Cal.4th 948.)

Defendant argues that the conduct alleged in Plaintiff’s FAC would be protected by the litigation privilege. Plaintiff seemingly alleges that an individuals called Defendants Hernandez and/or “Emily” perjured themselves before the Court in their compliance reporting on Plaintiff’s status. While it is unclear from Plaintiff’s FAC who these individuals are or what their relationship to Defendant is, the in-court statements that Plaintiff has alleged were false would be immune from tort liability through the litigation privilege because they were made during judicial proceedings.

All of Plaintiff’s claims related to the in-court statements would be barred by the litigation privilege.

Kidnapping and Wrongful Imprisonment

First, Penal Code § 207 does not allow for a private cause of action for kidnapping. Even if it did allow for a private cause of action, Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for kidnapping because Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants used force or fear to incarcerate Plaintiff, which are required elements for kidnapping. (See Penal Code § 207(a).) Furthermore, Penal Code § 207(f) indicates that the section does not apply to anyone making an arrest.

As for wrongful imprisonment, a required element for it is that it was done without lawful privilege. (See Penal Code § 236; Fermino v. Fedco, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 701, 716.) In this case, the statements were made in court, and based on those statements, Plaintiff was detained. This would be a lawful action. Plaintiff has not pled facts indicating that he was wrongfully imprisoned.

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s causes of action for kidnapping and wrongful imprisonment is sustained.

Fraud and Concealment

The elements of fraud are (1) misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance on the misrepresentation, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damages. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Fraud allegations “‘involve a serious attack on character’” and therefore are pleaded with specificity. (Hills Trans. Co. v. Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 702, 707.) General and conclusory allegations are insufficient. (Lazar, 12 Cal.4th at 645.) The particularity requirement demands that a plaintiff plead facts that “‘“show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.”’” (Id.) Further, when a plaintiff asserts fraud against a corporation, the plaintiff must “allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.) The elements for concealment are similar.

Plaintiff’s FAC is deficient because he does not indicate what was said in court or who said it. He does not allege whether the statements made by Defendants Hernandez and “Emily” were intentional or negligent. Plaintiff has not alleged anything beyond the basic elements of these causes of action. He has not alleged them with specificity, as is required.

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s causes of action for fraud and concealment is sustained.

Negligence

“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are (1) a legal duty to use reasonable care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate cause between the breach and (4) the plaintiff’s injury.” (Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 66 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339.)

Plaintiff’s FAC fails to allege any duty on the part of Defendants. It appears that he is alleging that Defendants were negligent because they failed to appear in court, but he does not indicate whether they were under any legal duty to appear in court. Plaintiff also does not indicate whether Defendants owed him any legal duty.

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence is sustained.

Uncertainty

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s FAC is uncertain because a complaint must contain “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (CCP § 425.10.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to plead the facts with sufficient clarity for Defendant to know the relationship of the parties, Defendants’ roles and duties, and the nature and contents of the report made to the Court. The FAC also fails to state who made the report to the Court or what the report said.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s causes of action for personal injury, emotional stress and duress, loss of personal property, loss of income, loss of time in Div. 50 program, and loss of record in Div. 50 program would be items of damages, not separate claims.

Additionally, while coercion is in the caption, the FAC fails to provide any facts relevant to this cause of action in the complaint itself.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s FAC is fatally uncertain.

Leave to Amend

Defendant has requested that the Court sustain its demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC without leave to amend, based on Plaintiff’s claims being barred by the Civ. Code § 47 litigation privilege and because “the burden of proving such reasonable possibility [to amend] is squarely on the plaintiff. [Citation.]” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d. 311, 318.)

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s demurrer, so Plaintiff has not fulfilled his burden of proving a reasonable possibility to amend his FAC. Based on this and Defendant’s above arguments, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s entire complaint and all causes of action is sustained without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC is sustained without leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

Dept. F43

Date: 5-16-24

Case #23CHCV02373 , Alfonso Star vs. San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center Inc., et al.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant San Fernando Valley Community Health Center, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Alfonso Star

RELIEF REQUESTED

An order compelling responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories.

RULING: Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On September 19, 2023, Defendant San Fernando Valley Community Health Center (Defendant) served Plaintiff Alfonso Star (Plaintiff) with Form Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant represents that Plaintiff did not serve responses by the deadline of October 25, 2023. Defendant filed this motion on December 14, 2023. Defendant seeks an order compelling responses to the form interrogatories.

No opposition or reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

The propounding party may move for an order compelling responses if a party to whom the interrogatories are directed fails to respond. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Responses to interrogatories are due within thirty days from the date of service of the interrogatories. (CCP §§ 2030.260(a), 2016.050.) The responding party waives any objections to the interrogatories by failing to serve responses in a timely manner. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories. Defendant has moved for an order compelling Plaintiff’s response to these Interrogatories. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the Form Interrogatories.

Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

Dept. F43

Date: 5-16-24

Case #23CHCV02373 , Alfonso Star vs. San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center Inc., et al.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY: Defendant San Fernando Valley Community Health Center, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Alfonso Star

RELIEF REQUESTED

An Order deeming Defendant’s Requests for Admission admitted.

RULING: Defendant’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On September 19, 2023, Defendant San Fernando Valley Community Health Center (Defendant) served Plaintiff Alfonso Star (Plaintiff) with Requests for Admission, Set One. Defendant represents that Plaintiff did not serve responses by the deadline of October 25, 2023. Defendant filed this motion on December 14, 2023. Defendant seeks an order deeming the requests for admission admitted.

No opposition or reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.” (CCP § 2033.010.)¿ “Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared…” (CCP § 2033.250(a).)¿

If a party to whom requests for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. (CCP § 2033.280(a).) The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)¿

Plaintiff did not serve responses to Defendants requests for admissions before the deadline. Based on the information available to the Court, it does not appear that Plaintiff has ever served responses to the requests for admissions.

Defendant’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is granted.

Moving party to give notice.