Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV24853, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendant State of California acting by and through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Benjamin Pahtle Quechol and Jocelynn Velasquez (“Plaintiffs”)

This action arises from an alleged motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs filed this action on September 25, 2024. The operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence.

On December 18, 2024, CDCR filed the instant motion to strike (the “Motion”). On April 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition.

The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (a) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (b) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 436, subds. (a), (b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)

For the purposes of a motion to strike pursuant to CCP sections 435 to 437, the term “pleading” generally means a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint, (CCP, § 435, subd. (a)), and an immaterial allegation or irrelevant matter in a pleading entails (1) an allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense, (2) an allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense, or (3) a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint (CCP, § 431.10, subds. (b)(1)-(3), (c)).

“STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, was negligent in the hiring, training and/or retention of defendant MICHAEL CONTRERAS.” (FAC, p. 5 ¶ GN-1.)

CDCR argues that the allegations are irrelevant, false and improper and are not drawn in conformity with the laws of California. Specifically, CDCR argues that California law does not provide for a negligent hiring, training and/or retention theory of liability against public entities. (Mot., pp. 3:22-4:14.)

Government Code section 815 states: “Except as otherwise provided by statute: (1) A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.” “[D]irect tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statue declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on the general tort provisions of Civil Code section 1714.” (Munoz v. City of Union City (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1112 [disapproved of on other grounds by Hayes v. County of San Diego (2013) 57 Cal.4th 622].) In addition, the Court of Appeal has expressly held that “a direct claim against a governmental entity asserting negligent hiring and supervision, when not grounded in the breach of a statutorily imposed duty owed by the entity to the injured party, may not be maintained.” (de Villers v. County of San Diego (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 238, 255–256.) Plaintiffs have not identified a statutory basis to support their allegation of negligent hiring, training and/or retention against CDCR, a public entity. Thus, Plaintiffs’ allegation is not plead in conformity with the law.

CDCR’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED. The language identified above is hereby stricken.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court