Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01403, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01403    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: C

TREJO. v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

CASE NO.:  22NWCV01403

HEARING:  04/13/23

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

     I.        Defendant LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend in part and SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend in part.

    II.        Defendant LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This personal injury action was filed by Plaintiff DANNY TREJO, a minor (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“Defendant”) on November 22, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following relevant facts: “Plaintiff was/is a disabled student at the Subject School with special needs, including the need for assistance in ambulating. An Individualized Education Program was in place for Plaintiff at all times relevant herein, who required constant supervision and assistance. [¶] On December 3, 2021, while under the care and supervision of defendants, Plaintiff was injured due to lack of supervision/assistance in ambulating and sustained injuries, including a dislocated knee and other injuries, including severe emotional injuries.” (Complaint ¶¶8-9.)

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Violation of UNRUH Civil Rights Act; (3) Violation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; and (4) Breach of Mandatory Statutory Duties.

Defendant LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“Defendant”) specially and generally demurs to Plaintiff’s first through fourth causes of action.

Uncertainty:

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s third and fourth claims are fatally uncertain. This argument lacks merit because “[a] special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach the failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading, but is directed at the uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.” (Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145-146.) Moreover, demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e. he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif. Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.) Here, it is clear from the Defendant’s other arguments that it understands what the third and fourth causes of action at least attempt to allege, and there is no true uncertainty. The demurrer is not sustained on the basis of uncertainty.

First Cause of Action – Negligent Supervision of Students

Gov. Code §815.2 states: “(a) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative. (b) 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 §820 states: “(a) Except as otherwise provided by statute… a public employee is liable for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person. (b) The liability of a public employee established by this part… is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public employee if he were a private person.” §820 does not impose any duty to supervise. It makes a public employee liable for an injury to the same extent as a private person.

“The law regarding the duty of supervision on school premises is very, very well established. It is the duty of the school authorities to supervise at all times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their protection. The school district is liable for injuries which result from a failure of its officers and employees to use ordinary care in this respect.” [Citations Omitted.]  (J.H. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 123, 139.) “Ample case authority establishes that school personnel owe students under their supervision a protective duty of ordinary care, for breach of which the school district may be held vicariously liable.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 865.) “Students are not at risk merely because they are at school, and schools, including school restrooms, are not dangerous places per se. [Citation Omitted.] Foreseeability is determined in light of all the circumstances and does not require prior identical events or injuries. [Citation Omitted.] It is not necessary to prove that the very injury which occurred must have been foreseeable by the school authorities…Their negligence is established if a reasonably prudent person would foresee that injuries of the same general type would be likely to happen in the absence of [adequate] safeguards…... Further, the issue of ‘foreseeability’ does not depend upon the foreseeability of a particular third party’s act, but instead focuses on whether the allegedly negligent conduct at issue created a foreseeable risk of a particular kind of harm.” [Citations Omitted] (M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist. (2003) 110 Cal. App.4th 508, 518-519.)

The demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend. Plaintiff does not allege facts with specificity regarding how Defendant/Defendant’s employee(s) failed to supervise the Plaintiff, and how this failure to supervise caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Facts must alleged. Mere recitations of law are inadequate.

Second Cause of Action – Violation of UNRUH Civil Rights Act

In Brennon B. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 367, the appellate court concluded that “public school districts are not business establishments under the Unruh Act.” (Id. at 369.) The demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Opposition indicates Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action.

Third and Fourth Causes of Action – Violation of IDEA and Breach of Mandatory Duties

In Opposition, Plaintiff states that he does not oppose the demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action. The demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action are SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Motion to Strike

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike. The Motion to Strike is GRANTED without leave to amend.