Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 25NNCV01318, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25NNCV01318 Hearing Date: June 6, 2025 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
matthew dow
gomez, Plaintiff, v. city of pasadena
(police DEPARTMENT, Defendant. |
Case No.: 25NNCV01318 Hearing Date: June 6, 2025 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: demurrer |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
On March 28, 2025, Plaintiff Matthew Dow
Gomez (“Plaintiff,” a self-represented litigant) filed the first amended
complaint (“FAC”), against Defendant City of Pasadena (Police Department)
(“Defendant”) for: (1) IIED due to ongoing harassment; (2) interference with
employment; and (3) “Damages, massive damages!” with additional accusations of
abuse of process, misleading the claimant, and vicious retaliatory
harassment. (FAC at 1:17-22.) Plaintiff alleges that since 2017, he has
been under investigation by some unknown federal agency, which he refers to as
“The Feds.” (Id. at
2:15-21.) He alleges that the Feds hide
behind the local police, making it difficult for him to get the documentation
that he needs. He alleges that he is
filing this action against Defendant because they allowed the Feds to come and
harass him and even participated in the harassment. (Id. at 2:21-26.) He alleges that “they” keep harassing him
because the Pasadena Police came to his place of employment and contacted his
employer, they blasted their horns at him, and they used police helicopters to follow
and take pictures of him. (Id. at
pp.3-4.) He believes that they are
intentionally trying to destroy him. (Id.
at 4:20.) He alleges that he is
currently homeless, jobless, depressed, angry, and neurologically irritable and
that he has been forced to file this action.
(Id. at 4:21-24.)
B.
Motion on Calendar
On April 30, 2025, Defendant City of
Pasadena filed a demurrer to the FAC.
On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed an
untimely opposition brief, which he captioned as “Response to Defendant, City
of Pasadena’s Attempt to Demurrer and Reprimand for Resistance to Discovery
Requests.” On May 28, 2025, Plaintiff
filed a document entitled “Preparation for Demurrer Hearing.”
REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE
With
the demurrer papers, Defendant requests judicial notice of 14 exhibits, which
include:
·
Exhibits 1-4
regarding Matthew Dow Gomez v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
(N.D. Texas, June 15, 2020, No. 3:20-cv-01584-B-BT) (“FBI Lawsuit”);
·
Exhibits 5-7
regarding Matthew Dow Gomez v. Christopher R. Williams, et al. (C.D.
Cal. Sept. 5, 2024, No. 8:24-cv-01927-FWS-DFM) (“US Army Lawsuit”);
·
Exhibits 8-9
regarding Matthew Dow Gomez v. Christopher Rand Williams, et al. (Cases
No. 24NNCV05371) (“US Army Lawsuit II”);
·
Exhibits 10-11
regarding Matthew Dow Gomez v. Pasadena Police Department, et al. (Case
No. 24NNCV05477) (“Pasadena Lawsuit I”); and
·
Exhibits 12-14
regarding this action (“Pasadena Lawsuit II”).
The request is granted pursuant to Evidence Code, §
452(d).
DISCUSSION
Defendant demurs to the FAC on the
grounds that the 1st to 3rd causes of action fail to
state sufficient facts and are uncertain.
A.
1st cause of action for IIED
The elements of intentional
infliction of emotional distress are: (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant;
(2) the defendant’s intention of causing or reckless disregard of the
probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff suffered severe or
extreme emotional distress; and (4) the plaintiff’s injuries were actually and
proximately caused by the defendant’s outrageous conduct. (Vasquez
v. Franklin Mgmt. Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819,
832.) In order to avoid a demurrer, the
plaintiff must allege with great specificity, the acts which she believes are
so extreme as to exceed all bounds of behavior usually tolerated in a civilized
community. (Id.)
Defendant argues that the FAC lacks facts
showing that Defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct and that
Defendant intended to cause him emotional distress. It also argues that Defendant has immunity,
Plaintiff’s harassment conspiracy is overreaching and speculative, Plaintiff is
barred by his own judicial admissions, and his action is time-barred.
First, with respect to whether Plaintiff’s
IIED claim is time-barred, Plaintiff filed his government claim on December 6,
2024. (Def.’s RJN, Ex. 14.) Pursuant to Government Code, §§905 and 945.4,
no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity until a
written claim has been presented to the public entity. “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.” (Gov. Code,
§ 911.2(a).) Using this timeframe, this
would mean that Plaintiff’s claim must have occurred by latest June 6,
2024. In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that
the Feds have been following him since 2017; the Feds/Pasadena Police went to
his place of employment on September 8 and 12, 2023 and engaged in harassing
behavior; Defendant used police helicopters to harass him on November 27, 2024;
and there was an incident involving a Pasadena Police cruiser on December 3,
2024. (FAC at pp.1-3.) Thus, portions of his action may be
time-barred, but there may possibly be some timely actionable events based on
the allegations in the FAC and the government claim submission date. This will not be a ground to sustain the
demurrer.
However, the Court sustains
the demurrer to the 1st cause of action on other grounds.
In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges
that the Feds have been harassing him and have been staying hidden behind the
police. He alleges that he is suing
Defendant because it has allowed the Feds to come and it has participated in
the harassment. (FAC at p.2.) He alleges that “The REAL defendants in this
case have been avoiding the court system and using their powers to create their
own narrative…. The Weaponization of Government (U.S. Federal) is a real thing
and even now they are trying to place Pasadena in the middle of this to avoid
the courts.” (Id. at p.8.) Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant
City of Pasadena is not the real defendant in this action and instead “The
Feds” are the real defendants. Even on
page 1 where Plaintiff lists the causes of action, he alleges: “Additional
accusations that come to mind include: abuse of process, misleading the
claimant (who is the real defendant here?) and vicious retaliatory
harassment.” (Id. at p.1.) Thus, based on Plaintiff’s own admissions, he
does not know who the real defendant is and appears to have sued Defendant City
of Pasadena as a possible placeholder. As
such, the allegations are uncertain and fail to state a cause of action against
Defendant.
In addition, the FAC fails to
allege facts that amount to a showing of intentionality by Defendant to cause
Plaintiff emotional distress and extreme and outrageous conduct. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant/the Feds (or
an ambiguous “they”) approached his place of employment and harassed his
employers or that helicopters followed him, but the allegations lack specific
facts showing that Defendant engaged in acts beyond the bounds of behavior
usually tolerated in a civilized society.
For these reasons, the
demurrer to the 1st cause of action is sustained. The Court will allow Plaintiff a single
opportunity to amend the pleading, if possible.
The opposition brief fails to address the
merits of the demurrer and instead makes extraneous arguments and a reprimand
of Defendant for resisting discovery. Plaintiff
also seeks to add causes of action for breach of duty and slander and
defamation of character in the complaint.
Plaintiff has not filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and,
thus, such request to add causes of action by way of the opposition brief is
denied.
B.
2nd cause of action for interference with
employment and 3rd cause of action for
damages
Defendant demurs to the 2nd and
3rd causes of action on the grounds that they do not state a
statutory (or even common law) basis for these “causes of action.”
There is no cause of action for interference
with employment and Plaintiff’s opposition does not address this. Further, there is no cause of action for
“damages” as that is an element to a cause of action and a remedy—not an
independent cause of action.
As such, the demurrer to the 2nd
and 3rd causes of action is sustained without leave to amend.
CONCLUSION AND
ORDER
Defendant’s demurrer to the first amended
complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend as to the 1st
cause of action. The demurrer is
sustained without leave to amend as to the 2nd and 3rd
causes of action.
To the extent that Plaintiff requested to
add causes of action to the complaint by way of his opposition papers, the
request is denied.
Defendant shall provide notice of this
order.
DATED: June 6, 2025 ___________________________
John
J. Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court