Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV22492, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22492    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant the Honorable Gary C. Eto (“Defendant”) demurs to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Korie Schmidt (“Plaintiff”).

The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Background

Plaintiff filed this action on September 18, 2023. The Complaint is styled as a “Complaint for Mandamus Damages” and states that it raises claims for (1) disability discrimination in violation of Civil Code, section 52 and 42 U.S.C. 12101; and (2) “holding a meeting in violation of open meeting law.”

The following allegations come from Plaintiff’s Complaint and the declaration Plaintiff attached to the Complaint.  Plaintiff has a friend is a party to a case (the “Underlying Action”) before Defendant in the Superior Court of California. (According to Defendant, the friend’s name is Armando Herman.)  According to the Complaint, the Underlying Action is Case No. 23STRO046 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Defendant is the presiding judge in the Underlying Action.

Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff “needed to judge to hear evidence that was extremely pertinent to the case that would eradicate any argument the other side could have against [their] friend.” (Schmidt Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that unfavorable rulings were entered against the friend as a result of the hearing.

Plaintiff alleges that that Plaintiff has a number of physical disabilities.

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff attempted to attend a hearing in the Underlying Action to support their friend. Defendant had determined that members of the public other than parties and witnesses were to be excluded from the hearing. As a result, Plaintiff was not permitted to enter the courtroom or be present for the hearing.

Plaintiff seeks damages as well as the reversal of rulings made by Defendant against Plaintiff’s friend in Case No. 23STRO046 on September 14, 2023. Th

Defendant demurred to the Complaint on November 21, 2023. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Legal Standard

As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) The court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

Discussion

Standing

“Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.) “Standing is related to the requirement contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 367 …. The real party in interest is generally the person who has the right to sue under the substantive law.” (River's Side at Washington Square Homeowners Association v. Superior Court of Yolo County (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1209, 1225.) “A party who is not the real party in interest lacks standing to sue because the claim belongs to someone else.” (Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, 690.)

Here, the real party in interest is not Plaintiff, but Plaintiff’s friend who was the litigant in the Underlying Action. Plaintiff does not claim to be a party to the Underlying Action. Thus, Plaintiff does not have standing to litigate claims arising from rulings made against Plaintiff’s friend in the Underlying Action.

Judicial Immunity

“It is well established judges are granted immunity from civil suit in the exercise of their judicial functions. This rule applies even where the judge's acts are alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly. The rule is based on a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequence to himself.” (Frost v. Geernaert (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1104, 1107 [internal citations and quotation marks omitted].) Judicial immunity “applies to all judicial determinations, including those rendered in excess of the judge's jurisdiction, no matter how erroneous or even malicious or corrupt they may be.”  (Howard v. Drapkin (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843, 851.) “The judge is immune unless he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” (Ibid. [internal citations and quotation marks omitted].)

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that Defendant, while acting as the assigned judicial officer in the Underlying Action, wrongfully prohibited Plaintiff from entering the courtroom during the proceedings. Plaintiff alleges that this exclusion prevented Plaintiff from offering evidence favorable to Plaintiff’s friend and resulted in adverse rulings against Plaintiff’s friend.

These claims fall squarely within the scope of judicial immunity. Although the First Amendment creates a general right of public access to court proceedings, the power to close hearings to the public under various circumstances is contemplated by both statutory law and case law. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1213-1214; Code Civ. Proc. § 124, subd. (a).) Thus, Defendant’s decision to exclude members of the public other than parties and witnesses cannot be said to be “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” (Howard v. Drapkin, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at 851.) Moreover, the scope of judicial immunity is broad, even assuming that the judge made an error in his rulings.  (Frost v. Geernaert, supra 200 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1107-1108 [affirming trial court order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend when plaintiff sued seven superior court judges because of their rulings].)  Defendant has judicial immunity against civil suit for those decisions.

The Court therefore sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.