Judge: Keri G. Katz, Case: 37-2021-00038623-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Keri Katz

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2021-00038623-CU-MC-CTL OCAMPO VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY BUILDING DEPT [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant County of San Diego's demurrer to Plaintiff's third amended complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla. (2018) 138 S.Ct. 1945, explains, [i]t is well established that in a § 1983 case a city or other local governmental entity cannot be subject to liability at all unless the harm was caused in the implementation of 'official municipal policy.' Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); see Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29, 36, 131 S.Ct. 447, 178 L.Ed.2d 460 (2010).

Lozman, 138 S.Ct. at 1951. Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112 further explains, [l]ocal governmental entities ' 'can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where ... the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted ....' ' (Pitts v. County of Kern (1990) 17 Cal.4th 340, 348-349 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 823, 949 P.2d 920], quoting Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658, 690 [98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611].) Local governmental entities also can be sued ' 'for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental 'custom.' ' ' (Pitts v. County of Kern, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 349, quoting Monell v. New York City Dept.

of Social Services, supra, 436 U.S. at pp. 690-691 [98 S.Ct. at p. 2036].) In addition, ' '[t]he plaintiff must ... demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct, the municipality was the 'moving force' behind the injury alleged. That is, a plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights.' ' (Pitts v. County of Kern, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 349, quoting Board of Comm'rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown (1997) 520 U.S. 397, 404 [117 S.Ct. 1382, 1388, 137 L.Ed.2d 626].) Zelig, 27 Cal.4th at 1147.

As with Plaintiff's second amended complaint Plaintiff's third amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to support a finding that the alleged acts of County employees were taken pursuant to an official County policy. Absent such allegations, this cause of action fails. Also, to the extent Plaintiff relies on allegations of the actions of County employees under a vicarious liability theory, such Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3006815  4 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  OCAMPO VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY BUILDING DEPT [IMAGED]  37-2021-00038623-CU-MC-CTL allegations are insufficient. As Connick v. Thompson (2011) 563 U.S. 51 explains, under § 1983, local governments are responsible only for 'their own illegal acts.' Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986) (citing Monell, 436 U.S., at 665–683, 98 S.Ct.

2018). They are not vicariously liable under § 1983 for their employees' actions. See id., at 691, 98 S.Ct.

2018; Canton, 489 U.S., at 392, 109 S.Ct. 1197; Board of Comm'rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S.

397, 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) (collecting cases).

Connick, 563 U.S. at 60.

Violation of Civil Code Section 52.1 Although the caption of the third amended complaint includes the words 'declaratory relief' and 'injunctive relief' there are no allegations as to any claims for declaratory relief or injunctive relief. The allegations of the second amended complaint seeking injunctive relief [SAC ¶ 37] does not appear in the third amended complaint. Instead, the third amended complaint seeks solely monetary relief, thereby rendering it subject to the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act (Government Code §§ 900, et seq.). Government Code §§ 905, 911.2, 945.4. As pled, the third amended complaint fails to allege compliance with the claims presentation requirements. Absent such allegations, this cause of action fails. State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234.

Although Plaintiff seeks leave to amend, Plaintiffs fail to proffer any facts to cure the above pleading deficiencies. Therefore, the court finds Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability the third amended complaint can again be amended to plead a basis for liability under either of these two causes of action against the County. Accordingly, Defendant County of San Diego's demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Assn., Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1143 citing Titus v. Canyon Lake Property Owners Assn. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 906, 917. See also, Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Ruinello v. Murray (1951) 36 Cal.2d 687, 690.

This ruling disposes of this case in its entirety.

The County is ordered to submit a judgment of dismissal within 10 days of this ruling.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3006815  4