Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV17718, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 26, 2024

Case Name: Albertoni v. LAUSD, et al.

Case No.: 22STCP00098

Matter: Demurrer; Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant LAUSD

Responding Party: Plaintiff Diane Albertoni

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Demurrer is overruled.

The Motion to Strike is granted in part, without leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Diane Albertoni filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), which alleges what appears to be twelve causes of action for FEHA failure to provide reasonable accommodations and failure to engage in the interactive process against Defendant LAUSD.

1. Demurrer

Defendant LAUSD now demurs to the TAC for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts. 

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, and “treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)  “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.”  (Hahn v. Mirda¿(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)  It is error “to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment.”  (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.¿(1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

The TAC’s labels are not determinative.  Although the labels indicate the existence of twelve causes of action, there are only two causes of actions pleaded: (a) failure to engage in the interactive process and (b) failure to provide reasonable accommodations.  The TAC is deemed to assert only two causes of action. 

The elements of a reasonable accommodation cause of action are (1) the employee suffered a disability, (2) the employee could perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the employee's disability.  (Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 373.)  

“The ‘interactive process' required by the FEHA is an informal process with the employee or the employee's representative, to attempt to identify a reasonable accommodation that will enable the employee to perform the job effectively. [Citation.] Ritualized discussions are not necessarily required.”  (Scotch v. Art Inst. of California (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 986, 1013.)

The TAC sufficiently alleges that remote work was a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s disability that had already been given to her in the past; there were remote positions available in a virtual academy; LAUSD failed to follow the FEHA and their own policies by not engaging in a good faith discussion to determine the feasibility of alternative options; and Plaintiff was denied a full opportunity to address an accommodation committee and appeal process.  Further facts can be obtained in discovery.  Defendant’s demurrer reads as a summary judgment motion.  

The Demurrer is overruled.  An answer is to be filed within 20 days.

2. Motion to Strike

LAUSD also seeks to strike the TAC as follows: “(1) Plaintiff’s 2nd to 9th, 11th, and 12th ‘causes of action’ are not, in fact, independent or cognizable causes of action, and they are therefore subject to strike as irrelevant and improper; (2) Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the School District’s liability for punitive or exemplary damages are subject to strike as irrelevant and improper; (3) Plaintiff’s prayer for attorneys’ fees is not supported by the TAC or the law, and is subject to strike on that basis; (4) Plaintiff’s prayer for equitable and injunctive relief is not supported by the TAC or the law, and is subject to strike on that basis; (5) Plaintiff’s prayer for expert witness costs is not supported by the TAC or any authority and is subject to strike.” 

Motions to strike are used to challenge defects in the pleadings not subject to demurrer.  Any party may move to strike the whole or any part of a pleading within the time allotted to respond to the pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 435(b)(1).)  The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the Court is required to take judicial notice.  (Id. § 437(a).)  The Court may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, and strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Id. § 436.)  An “irrelevant” matter includes any “demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.”  (Id. § 431.10(b)(3), (c); see also Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1036-1042.) 

The first issue is rejected as already being addressed above for the demurrer. 

The Motion is granted, without leave to amend, as to punitive damages, which cannot be obtained against a public entity.  (Gov. Code § 818.)

The Motion is denied as to attorneys’ fees, which can be recovered under the FEHA.  (Gov. Code § 12965(c).)

The Motion is granted, without leave to amend, as to equitable relief because the TAC fails to explain its relevance or propriety.  

The Motion is denied as to expert costs.  The propriety of such costs can be addressed at the appropriate time.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.