Judge Joseph Lipner, Case Number: 25STCV00984, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 25STCV00984, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV00984 Hearing Date: April 10, 2025 Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

RONALD CEBALLOS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Defendant. Case No: 25STCV00984 Hearing Date: April 10, 2025 Calendar Number: 12

Defendant County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (the “County”) demurs to the Complaint filed by Ronald Ceballos (“Plaintiff”).

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the demurrer to May 19, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. so that Plaintiff can be properly served with the demurrer.

Background

Factual Background

This appears to be a malicious prosecution case. The following facts are taken from the allegations of the Complaint, which the Court accepts as true for the purposes of the demurrer.

On May 13, 2023, a City of Los Angeles Administrative Judge issued a ruling stating that Plaintiff had received an overpayment from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services. The decision stated that Plaintiff was responsible for reimbursing the County with the amount of $784.00. The decision did not make a determination that any action by Plaintiff had been felonious or fraudulent. At the hearing, Angelita Leon-Chang testified as a representative of the Department of Public

and Social Services that there was a mistake in calculating a $2,169.00 overpayment, and that the correct amount was a $784.00 overpayment.

On May 25, 2023, the County filed felony charges against Plaintiff, alleging that Plaintiff had received an overpayment amount of $2,169.00. Plaintiff alleges that the County filed the charges as an act of malfeasance and retaliation against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff apparently did not find out about the felony charges pending against him until June 27, 2023, when Plaintiff’s employment was terminated due to his employer receiving a background report stating that the County had filed felony charges against Plaintiff. Plaintiff was not able to secure employment and remained unemployed for 12 months.

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff received a Criminal Complaint and Order to Appear for Arraignment on November 8, 2023 regarding the felony charges. This was the first written communication that Plaintiff received from the County regarding the charges.

On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff appeared for his arraignment and pleaded not guilty on the advice of his public defender.

On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff appeared for his Trial Setting Hearing. On the advice of his public Defender, Plaintiff paid the outstanding amount of $784.00 to the county.

On February 23, 2024, the felony charges against Plaintiff were dismissed at an Early Disposition Hearing. Plaintiff alleges that the felony charges remained on Plaintiff’s background reports for the following three months and prevented Plaintiff from securing employment until June 2024.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed this action on January 15, 2025. Although the Complaint does not identify any specific causes of action by name, Plaintiff’s claim appears to be one for malicious prosecution.

On March 3, 2025, the County demurred to the Complaint and attempted to serve Plaintiff by mail. On the same day, Raymond J. Fuentes, counsel for the County, mailed a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff. (3/3/2025 Fuentes Decl. ¶ 5.) Fuentes could not call Plaintiff because a phone number was not provided in the Complaint. (3/3/2025 Fuentes Decl. ¶ 5.)

On March 12, 2023, the envelope containing the County’s demurrer was returned to Fuentes, stamped “Return to Sender, Attempted-Not Known-Unable to Forward”. (3/12/2025 Fuentes Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.) On the same day, Fuentes filed a declaration stating

as such and served that declaration, along with Exhibit B, the photo of the returned envelope, on Plaintiff via mail. (3/12/2025 Fuentes Decl. at p. 3.)

On March 13, 2023, the envelope containing Fuentes’ meet and confer letter was returned to Fuentes, stamped “Return to Sender, Attempted-Not Known-Unable to Forward”. (3/19/2025 Fuentes Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. C.)

On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff called Fuentes’ office and informed Fuentes that he had received Fuentes’ March 12, 2025 declaration with Exhibit B, the photo of the returned demurrer envelope. (3/19/2025 Fuentes Decl. ¶ 9.) Fuentes told Plaintiff that the demurrer was still on calendar for April 10, 2025 and explained the basis of the demurrer. (3/19/2025 Fuentes Decl. ¶ 10.) Fuentes told Plaintiff that he still had time to file a written opposition, but Plaintiff stated that he preferred to appear at the hearing and orally argue the demurrer. (3/19/2025 Fuentes Decl. ¶ 9.)

Discussion

Service

Although Plaintiff now has notice, by phone, that a demurrer has been filed, it appears that Plaintiff has not actually been served with a copy of the demurrer yet. Plaintiff must be served before the proceedings on the demurrer can continue.

The Court continues the hearing for this reason.

Merits of the Demurrer

Prosecutorial Immunity

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.” (Gov. Code, § 815.2, subd. (b).)

“A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.” (Gov. Code, § 821.6.)

Here, the basis that Plaintiff alleges for liability is that the County wrongfully filed criminal charges against Plaintiff. This case therefore appears to fall within the prosecutorial immunity granted by Government Code, section 821.6. And because no public employee could be held liable on this basis, Government Code, section 815.2, subd. (b) prevents the County from being held liable as well.

The Court is therefore inclined to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. However, the Court defers ruling on this demurrer until Plaintiff can be properly served and given an opportunity to oppose the demurrer after full notice.