Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00204, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 21TRCV00204    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

 

 

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                                 Tuesday, September 27, 2022

Department B                                                                                                                                                Calendar No. 4 

 

 


 

PROCEEDINGS

 

Alan Hall v. City of Lawndale, et al.   

21TRCV00204

  1. City of Lawndale’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

  2. City of Lawndale’s Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint  

     

    TENTATIVE RULING


                City of Lawndale’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend, in part, and without leave to amend, in part. The demurrer to the first through third causes of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

     

                City of Lawndale’s Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint is moot.

     

                Background 

     

                Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on March 18, 2021. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed on February 8, 2022.  Plaintiff alleges the following facts.  Defendant has improperly denied Plaintiff a permit to construct his accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”). This denial prevented Plaintiff from obtaining financial benefits. Also, Defendant harassed Plaintiff.

     

                Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged the following causes of action: 1. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 2. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 3. Harassment; 4. Injunctive Relief; 5. Declaratory Relief.  City of Lawndale’s Demurrer to Complaint was sustained with 20 days leave to amend, in part, and without leave to amend, in part.  The demurrer to the first through third causes of action was sustained with 20 days leave to amend.  The demurrer to the fourth and fifth causes of action was sustained without leave to amend.  The FAC includes the first through third cause of action and a newly added fourth “cause of action” for “Vicarious Liability.”

     

                Meet and Confer

                 

                Defendant set forth a meet and confer declaration in sufficient compliance with CCP § 430.41 and CCP § 435.5.  (Decl., Mingmei Zhu, ¶¶ 2-13.)

     

                Demurrer


A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.)  In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)  The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law.  (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action.  (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.)  Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer.  (C.C.P., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.”  (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.)  "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer."  (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.)  Under Code Civil Procedure § 430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.”  Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet.  (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Demurrer of Sean Moore and Michael Reyes

Defendants’ demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

Generally, upon the sustaining of the demurrer, the scope of leave to amend is to amend the existing causes of action not to add new causes of action or parties.  See, People ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Wks. v. Clausen (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 770, 785.  Addition of a new cause of action or parties may be proper, however, when it “directly responds to the court's reason for sustaining the earlier demurrer.”  Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015.  Here, the scope of leave to amend upon the sustaining of the demurrer to the Complaint did not authorize the adding of these new parties.

Demurrer of City of Lawndale as to all Causes of Action

The demurrer to the entire First Amended Complaint is sustained for the following reasons.

Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act (“Act”).  The Government Tort Claims Act mandates that all claims or damages against a public entity must be presented in writing prior to filing a civil action.  Gov. Code §§ 810-996.6.  Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the Act.  Thus, the FAC is subject to a general demurrer.  State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1237, 1239-45.

Plaintiff alleges compliance by stating that he emailed “the Defendant and City Council in a timely and sufficiently detailed manner regarding the way he was treated by Defendant, the harassment he endured and the illegal and fraudulent denial of his ADU application.”  (FAC, ¶ 45.)  Plaintiff fails to set forth authority to show that simply sending emails complaining about his treatment constitutes a formal claim in compliance with the Act.  Plaintiff fails to allege or demonstrate that a written claim was delivered to a person authorized to accept a claim under the Act. Gov. Code § 915(a).  Defendants alleged actual knowledge of the facts is not a substitute for compliance with the claims presentation requirement.  DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 990.  


First Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic

Advantage

Second Cause of Action for Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic

Advantage

 

In addition, to the grounds for demurrer as to all causes of action noted above, the demurrer to the first and second causes of action is sustained for the following reasons.

 

The elements of Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage are: (a) An economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (b) The defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (c) Intentional acts by the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (d) Actual disruption of the relationship; (e) Economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant; (f) Conduct that was wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself.  Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 376, 378.

 

“The tort of negligent interference with prospective economic advantage is established where a plaintiff demonstrates that (1) an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to plaintiff; (2) the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship; (3) the defendant was negligent; and (4) such negligence caused damage to plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship.”  Venhaus v. Shultz (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1078.  A claim for negligent interference also requires the pleading of the independent wrongful conduct. National Medical Transportation Network v. Deloitte & Touche (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 412, 439-42.

 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating the existence of an economic relationship between Plaintiff and a third party which contained a probable future economic benefit to Plaintiff, Defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the relationship, intentional or negligent acts designed to disrupt that relationship, actual disruption of the relationship, and economic harm caused to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff has also failed to allege facts to demonstrate that the alleged interference was wrongful independent of the interference itself.  Plaintiff has merely set forth facts alleging that he had a goal of renting out the ADU to third parties.  There are no facts of any existing economic relationship, or facts that Defendant had knowledge of any existing economic relationship.  Plaintiff has not alleged facts that the acts are independently wrongful. Plaintiff merely provides conclusions.

 

            Third Cause of Action for Harassment

 

            In addition to the grounds for demurrer as to all causes of action, the demurrer is sustained for the following reason.  Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to state a cause of action for Harassment.  Plaintiff has alleged economic and non-economic damages in connection with this cause of action, including emotional distress. (FAC, ¶ 70-72.) However, Plaintiff has not identified a statute that provides for such remedies.

 

            Fourth Cause of Action for Vicarious Liability

 

            The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

 

Generally, upon the sustaining of the demurrer, the scope of leave to amend is to amend the existing causes of action not to add new causes of action or parties.  See, People ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Wks. v. Clausen (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 770, 785.  Addition of a new cause of action may be proper, however, when it “directly responds to the court's reason for sustaining the earlier demurrer.”  Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015. Here, the scope of leave to amend upon the sustaining of the demurrer to the Complaint did not authorize the adding of the fourth cause of action.

 

In addition, vicarious liability is not an independent cause of action. It is a legal theory that imposes liability on a principal or employer for the torts of an agent or employee who is acting on the principal or employer's behalf.  The cause of action is the underlying tort.

Therefore, the demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

           

            Motion to Strike 

 

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  CCP § 436(a).  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.  CCP § 436(b).  The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws.  CCP § 436.  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  CCP § 437.

 

Pursuant to the Court’s ruling sustaining the demurrer to the entire First Amended Complaint, the motion to strike is moot.

 

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.