Judge: George F. Bird, Jr., Case: 22CMCV00104, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00104 Hearing Date: February 2, 2023 Dept: B
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff, vs. Defendants. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
CASE NO: [TENTATIVE]
ORDER Dept. B DATE: TIME: COMPLAINT FILED: TRIAL DATE: |
On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff Michael
Brian Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint. The First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) asserted causes of action for (1) violation of Fourth Amendment rights
– unconstitutional search and seizure, (2) personal injury, (3) intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional
distress against Defendant Los Angeles County (“Defendant”). Defendant filed a
demurrer to all causes of action. On October 13, 2022, the Demurrer was
sustained, with 20 days leave to amend, on Plaintiff’s first cause of action
and sustained, without leave to amend, on Plaintiff’s second, third, and fourth
causes of action. The Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to comply with
Government Code sections 911.2 and 945.4 which require a Plaintiff to present a
written claim for monetary damages against a public entity within six months if
the claim relates to injury to a person or to personal property and within one
year if the claim relates to any other cause of action. Plaintiff was granted
an additional 20 days to file an amended complaint on December 14, 2022.
On December 23, 2022, Plaintiff
filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The caption of the SAC alleges
causes of action for (1) violation of Fourth Amendment rights – excessive
force, (2) violation of Fourth Amendment rights – unconstitutional search and
seizure, (3) reckless negligence, and (4) personal injury and noneconomic
damages consisting of mental anguish, emotional distress, depression, anxiety,
loss of quality of life, loss of enjoyment of life, and PTSD. Plaintiff’s final
request is for punitive damages.
II.
DEMURRER
A. Defendant filed the Demurrer on
January 3, 2023.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff
failed to present a timely written claim to the public entity before filing a
suit for money damages under Government Code sections 911.2 and 945.4. Defendant
argues that the statute was not tolled until Plaintiff discovered his PTSD and
that Plaintiff’s claims for reckless negligence and personal injury are barred.
Defendant further argues that Plaintiff has still failed to cure the defect in
his Fourth Amendment rights claim because Plaintiff has not alleged a policy,
custom, or practice that caused his injuries.
B. Plaintiff filed two oppositions.
Plaintiff filed the Opposition on
January 13, 2023, and the Amended Opposition on January 17, 2023. Because both documents
are substantially similar and the Amended Opposition is timely under Code of
Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), the Court will consider the Amended
Opposition filed January 17, 2023, only. The Amended Opposition attempts to add
several causes of action including assault, false imprisonment, unlawful
detainment, trespass, and invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion. The
Court will not consider these causes of action as they are not pled in the SAC.
C. Defendant replied on January 26,
2023.
Defendant again argues that
Plaintiff failed to present a timely written claim to the public entity before
filing a suit for monetary damages under Government Code sections 911.2 and
945.4, and that the statute was not tolled for any reason.
D. Plaintiff filed a reply to
Defendant’s Reply on January 30, 2023.
Under Code of Civil Procedure
section 1005, subdivision (b), all papers opposing a demurrer must be filed
nine (9) court days before the hearing. Plaintiff has filed a reply to
Defendant’s Reply only three court days before the hearing. The Court declines
to consider Plaintiff Michael Brian Smith’s Response to Defendant’s Reply to
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint.
III.
DISCUSSION
A. Government Code sections 911.2 and
945.4.
The Court has already sustained a
demurrer, without leave to amend, for causes of action for personal injury,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress. Plaintiff is barred from realleging the present causes of
action for personal injury and noneconomic damages related to emotional
distress.
Even if the Court were to consider
the claims presented, Plaintiff is still barred from pursuing the claims by Government
Code sections 911.2 and 945.4. “… [N]o 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.) The SAC states that Plaintiff
submitted a Government Claims Form on December 29, 2021, which was rejected on
February 14, 2022. (SAC, ¶¶ 2, 3.)
“A claim relating to a cause of
action for death or for injury to person or to personal property … shall be
presented … not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.
A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented … not later
than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Gov. Code, § 911.2,
subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiff’s SAC alleges injuries stemming from a traffic stop
that occurred on March 26, 2020. (SAC, ¶ 33.) The six-month deadline for
presenting a claim is September 26, 2020. The year deadline for presenting a
claim is March 26, 2021.
Plaintiff argues that, while his
physical injury accrued on the day of the accident, the accrual of his claim for
his psychological injuries was tolled until he discovered his PTSD on November
22, 2021. (SAC, ¶ 7.)
“Accrual of the cause of action for
purposes of the government claims statute is the date of accrual that would
pertain under the statute of limitations applicable to a dispute between
private litigants. [Citations.]” (Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist.
(2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 208–209 [64 Cal.Rptr.3d 210, 216, 164 P.3d 630, 634], as
modified (Oct. 10, 2007).) Typically, the statute of limitations commences when
a cause of action accrues and, generally, an action accrues on the date of
injury. (See Vaca v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 737,
743 [129 Cal.Rptr.3d 354, 358].) The discovery rule, however, tolls the statute
of limitations until “plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was
caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.” (Vaca
v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 743.)
It is clear that Plaintiff believed
he was mentally injured by the traffic stop on March 4, 2021, when Plaintiff
filed an action claiming that the March 26, 2020, traffic stop was illegal and
left Plaintiff “injured and emotionally beat.” (Complaint in matter No. 21CMCV00045.)
The Court finds that even if the accrual date of Plaintiff’s emotional damages
was tolled under the discovery rule until Plaintiff suspected his injury was
caused by wrongdoing, Plaintiff was aware that the traffic stop had a negative
emotional impact as of March 4, 2021. Six months after March 4, 2021, was
September 4, 2021. Plaintiff still failed to present a claim in compliance with
Government Code sections 911.2 and 945.4.
The Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the
claims for reckless negligence and personal injury including noneconomic
damages consisting of mental anguish, emotional distress, depression, anxiety,
loss of quality of life, loss of enjoyment of life, and PTSD.
B. Fourth Amendment violation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that
local governmental entities and local officials can be liable under section
1983, provided that an official policy or custom leads to the violation of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (See Monell v. Department of Social
Servs. (1978.) 436 U.S. 658, 690-91; see also Pierce v. San Mateo County
Sherriff’s Dept. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 995.) After reviewing
the SAC, Plaintiff fails to allege an official policy or custom which lead to
the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Because Plaintiff has been provided
an opportunity to amend his allegations and has again failed to allege a cause
of action for violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, the Demurrer is
SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The
Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED in its entirety.
Plaintiff is not granted leave to amend.
//
Dated:
Judge of the Superior
Court