Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22STCV21184 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV21184, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21184 Hearing Date: February 23, 2023 Dept: C

VILLAESCUSA v. CITY OF BELLFLOWER

CASE NO.: 22STCV21184

HEARING: 02/23/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

II. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is MOOT.

Moving Party to give Notice.

The instant Demurrer was originally set for hearing on December 14, 2022. However, that date was vacated on December 9, 2022 and this action was assigned to this Court. Accordingly, the Demurrer was rescheduled for hearing on February 23, 2023. “All papers opposing a motion… shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days… before the hearing.” (CCP §1005(b).) In accordance with the new hearing date, Plaintiff’s Opposition was timely filed and served on February 8, 2023.

This action was filed by Plaintiff FRANKIE ANTHONY VILLAESCUSA (“Plaintiff”) on June 29, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that “[t]his Complaint concerns an officer and/or deputy-involved incident…. On or about May 25, 2021, Plaintiff… was approached, questioned, detained and escorted by Defendant JOHN DOE…. Defendant JOHN DOE negligently assessed the circumstances presented to him, and violently confronted and unjustifiably detained Plaintiff without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that Plaintiff had committed a crime, or would commit a crime. Without warning, the Defendant JOHN DOE detained and escorted Plaintiff with such force that Plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a direct and proximate result of being detained and/or escorted.” (Complaint ¶11.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Battery – Civil Code §43; (2) Negligence – Cal. Gov. Code §§850.2(a), 820(a); (3) Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision (Cal. Gov. Code §§815.2(a), 820(a); and (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (“County”) specially and generally demurs to the first and fourth causes of action.

The County is a public entity, and thus the heightened pleading requirements for public entities applies. The Complaint pleads that JOHN DOE was an officer employed by the City of Bellflower, Bellflower Police Department, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and the CHP. (Complaint ¶3.) The Complaint further pleads that John Doe violently confronted Plaintiff and unjustifiably detained him, then used unreasonable force upon Plaintiff. (Complaint ¶11.) These conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish specific conduct by any County employees to meet the heightened pleading requirements that are required for claims against a public entity. Accordingly, as pled, the allegations are insufficient to impose liability against the County pursuant to Gov. Code §815.2.

For the same reasons, Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to establish that the County/County’s employee acted with intent to either physically or emotionally harm Plaintiff. “The essential elements of a cause of action for battery are: (1) defendant touched plaintiff, or caused plaintiff to be touched, with the intent to harm or offend plaintiff; (2) plaintiff did not consent to the touching; (3) plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant’s conduct; and (4) a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position would have been offended by the touching” (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 668-669.) A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress consists of three elements: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the Defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard for the possibility of causing, emotional distress; (2) Plaintiff suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by Defendant’s outrageous conduct. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050.) Outrageous conduct is defined as conduct that is “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Id. at p. 1050-1051.)

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

The Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is rendered MOOT by the Court’s ruling on the Demurrer above.