Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2023-00018721-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 03, 2024

01/05/2024  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00018721-CU-PO-CTL WALLACE VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 07/17/2023

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT's UNOPPOSED Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

This is a negligence case brought by Plaintiffs BENJAMIN D. WALLACE and AIDAN F. WALLACE against SDUSD. Plaintiffs assert eleven causes of action for various incidents ranging from lack of response to bullying incidents to privacy violations involving FERPA. All the alleged actions occurred between October 15, 2019, and August 29, 2022.

Based on the unopposed Demurrer, Plaintiffs' causes of action fail as a matter of law for several reasons. First, all of Plaintiffs' causes of action fail because Plaintiffs did not plead compliance with the California Government Code's claim requirements. (E.g., State of California v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239-43.) Second, all of Plaintiffs' causes of action fail because Plaintiffs fail to identify the statute(s) under which they assert liability against SDUSD. (E.g., Cochran v. Herzog Engraving Co. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 405, 409.) As a public entity, pursuant to the Govt Torts Claims Act, SDUSD is only liable in tort based upon violation of a statute. No such statutes are clearly alleged as a basis of liability.

Third, all of Benjamin Wallace's claims fail to allege a duty on behalf of SDUSD.

Fourth, all of Aidan's claims fail because he lacks capacity to sue on his own behalf. Aidan is alleged minor and no guardian ad litem has been appointed on behalf of Aidan. To the extent Mr. Benjamin Wallace, a non-attorney, will attempt to cure as the guardian ad litem, he is representing himself and, as such, is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law through his purported representation of Aidan.

(E.g., Cal. Code Civ. Proc, §372; J.W. v. Sup. Ct. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 969; Torres v. Friedman (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 880, 887.) Fifth, based on the demurrer, Plaintiffs' causes of action one through seven, and nine, appear to be time-barred.

Sixth, Plaintiffs' causes of action nine and eleven fail because Plaintiffs fail to plead necessary elements of their claims, and because Plaintiffs lack standing.

Plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer, which the Court construes as a concession to its merits. Plaintiff has also not provided a basis for this Court to grant leave to amend. The Demurrer is sustained without leave.

Based on this ruling, the Motion to Strike is moot.

Defendant is to provide to the Court a judgment of dismissal based upon this ruling.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2996014