Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV45243, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45243    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants’ demurrers are SUSTAINED, WITH 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

            On 12/13/2021, Freedom to Choose L.A. and 4,499 other Plaintiffs filed suit against 80 Defendants alleging 15 causes of action related to COVID-19 mandates.

            Now, Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles County Office of Education, City of Los Angeles and Barbara Romero demur to Plaintiff’s FAC.

            While Defendants’ demurrers were filed separately, the Court has consolidated its analysis due to the substantively similar arguments advanced by the moving parties.

Discussion

            As a preliminary matter, the Court agrees with Defendants that the FAC does not comply with Rule 2.112.

 With over 80 Defendants and nearly 5,000 purported Plaintiffs, a clear assertion as to which parties are making the claims and against whom they are bringing them is vital. While Defendant’s FAC now adds “against all Defendants” at the beginning of each cause of action, no statement is made as to which individuals are asserting such claims against each defendant. As such, this amendment does not achieve the fundamental purpose of Rule 2.112 which is to provide notice of the claim, the specific parties asserting the claim, and the specific parties against whom the claim is being asserted.

            Indeed, it is not ever clear who all of the Plaintiffs are supporting this case. As explained in LAUSD’s demurrer:

While 32 named individuals are labeled “Plaintiffs” in the caption, the caption also indicates that the Plaintiffs include “Members more fully identified in Appendix ‘A’, hereto.” This is confirmed within the FAC, where the parties are described as follows: “All lead Plaintiffs and those separately identified in Appendix ‘A’ are also speaking out on behalf of their children and grandchildren and have authorized this legal action…” and students subject to the mandates “now and in the future.” (FAC ¶¶ 21, 42, fn. 12.) Appendix A has columns purporting to identify “Spouses/Other” and “Dependents 0-26 years old,” both groups of whom are presumably also Plaintiffs in this matter.

Further, there is insufficient identifying information for the 2,657 “members” and 2,240 “dependents” of members. Instead, vague identifiers are used, such as “Children,” “Wife,” “Husband,” “Girlfriend,” “Ex-Wife,” “Fiancee [sic],” “Fiance [sic],” “Stepdaughter,” “Son,” “Daughter,” “Partner,” “Spouse,” acronyms and initials. (FAC, Appendix A.) This problem is compounded by the fact that the list of alleged members includes multiple individuals that do not appear to have ever been employed LAUSD and their relationship to LAUSD is not sufficiently specified. For example, the list of members references employees of other state agencies, selfemployed individuals, employees of private businesses, retirees, unemployed individuals, and those whose status is unidentified. (Id.)

In fact, it appears that only three “Plaintiffs” that are specified within the FAC as having any relation to LAUSD. One is described as SUSANNA HERNANDEZ, an “adult teacher.” (FAC ¶ 21.) However, even this description is clouded in confusion for the FAC also refers to her as a “city employee” (Id. at page 18, line 28), but refers throughout to the City of Los Angeles as a separate entity from LAUSD. A similar lack of clarity continues throughout the FAC. For example, when Plaintiffs’ refer to “City employees,” it is not always apparent if they are referring to individuals who work in the city of Los Angeles (which may include some LAUSD employees) or for the city. (See, e.g., FAC ¶ 1 [alleging “numerous City and County employees were greeted with notice of firing…]; FAC ¶ 25 [indicating the City of Los Angeles is referred to in the FAC as “CITY, “ all caps].)

            (LAUSD’s Demurrer, 13: 14-14:10.)

Substantially similar issues are identified by all demurring parties. Plaintiffs will be afforded one final opportunity to bring their pleadings into conformity with Court rules. Plaintiff may not avoid pleading requirements by merely adding all Defendants to each claim. Plaintiff’s pleadings must allow Defendants to determine which claims are actually being asserted against them by which Plaintiffs. If, in fact, each cause of action is asserted against each Defendant, then those causes of action must contain factual allegations which concern all Defendants.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrers are sustained, with 10 days leave to amend.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.