Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: BC655480, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC655480    Hearing Date: December 19, 2022    Dept: B

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                   Monday, December 19, 2022

Department B                                                                                                                            Calendar No. 10

PROCEEDINGS

            Harold C. Branch, III v. City of Torrance, et al.

BC655480

1.      City of Torrance, et al.’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings    

TENTATIVE RULING

                City of Torrance, et al.’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Background

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 27, 2017, in both state and federal court.  On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in the federal action.  Thus, the Second Amended Complaint is the operative pleading as it was the pleading at issue when the action was remanded back to the instant State Court.  Plaintiff alleges the following facts: On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff’s mother, decedent Michelle Shirley, was shot and killed by officers of the Torrance Police Department following a slow speed chase. Plaintiff contends the Defendants failed to notice that decedent was suffering from a mental illness episode and utilized excessive force by shooting decedent. 

This matter was previously in federal court under federal jurisdiction due to Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  In the federal action, Defendants moved for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication. The motion was granted, in part, and denied, in part.  As to the portions of the motion which were denied, Defendants appealed.  The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity holding that the use of force at the time of the shooting was objectively reasonable.  The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the state law battery and Bane Act claims should have been dismissed.  As to the state law negligence and wrongful death claims, the Ninth Circuit held that these claims should be remanded back to the trial court to consider whether Plaintiff may have viable claims based on the conduct of the officers prior to the actual shooting.  The district court thereafter remanded the action back to the instant state court.

Prior to the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication, the causes of action that remained were: The first cause of action for Intentional Wrongful Death and second cause of action for Negligent Wrongful Death. The Court noted that both parties made reference to a cause of action for Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Training.  The Court noted that this cause of action was apparently alleged in the original Complaint but was omitted from the operative Second Amended Complaint.  The state court ordinarily gives effect to all pleadings and rulings made by the federal court while the case was removed to federal court. Laguna Village, Inc. v. Laborer's Int'l Union of North America (1983) 35 Cal.3d 174, 180-81. Thus, no cause of action for Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Training was included in the operative pleading.

On September 15, 2021, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication was denied, in part, and granted, in part.  Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied.  After the ruling on the motion, the only cause of action that remains is the second cause of action for Negligent Wrongful Death.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452(d).

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired.  Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).  Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply.  Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1012.  “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant.”  Rolfe v. Cal. Transp. Comm’n (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 239, 242; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii).  “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.”  Civic Partners Stockton, LLC, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1013.  In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll allegations in the complaint and matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.”  Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313. A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made without meeting the requirements of CCP 438. Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145, fn. 2.

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings.  The motion is made “as to the allowable Party Plaintiff.”  (Motion, page 2, line 5.)  The Court will treat the motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the operative Second Amended Complaint.  The motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff has now reached the age of majority, and thus the guardianship has terminated by operation of law pursuant to Probate Code § 1600 and California Rules of Court, Rule 7.1004.

Upon matters to which the Court may properly take judicial notice, Defendants have established that Plaintiff has now reached the age of majority.  Therefore, the guardianship has been terminated by operation of law.

Thus, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted with 20 days leave to amend to allow Plaintiff to name himself in his proper status as an individual Plaintiff, rather than through the guardian ad litem.

            Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.