Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02294, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02294, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02294 Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 Dept: C

Jessica Walker, a Minor by Her Gal Shanda D. Brayboy vs Bellflower Unified School District, et al

Case No.: 23NWCV02294

Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

#11

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Bellflower Unified School District’s Demurrer to the First and Second Causes of Action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendant to give notice.

Background

Plaintiff Jessica Walker, a minor, by her Guardian ad Litem Shanda D. Brayboy ("Plaintiff') sues Defendant Bellflower Unified School District ("Defendant") for two causes of action: (1) negligent supervision and (2) violating Civil Code section 52.1 (the Bane Civil Rights Act). Both causes of action stem from an alleged May 9, 2022 fight at school which Plaintiff alleges resulted in personal injury.

As of March 19, 2024, this motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object to the pleading, by demurrer, on several grounds, including the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) A party may demur to an entire complaint, or to any causes of action stated therein. (CCP § 430.50(a).)

Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings which are not challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer for damages, etc.). (CCP §§ 435, 436 & 437.) A motion to strike lies only where the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (C.C.P. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (C.C.P. § 437.)

Discussion

In California, "to state a cause of action against a public entity, every fact material to the existence of its statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity." (City of Los Angeles v. Sup. Ct. (2021) 62 Cal. App. 5th 129, 138.) In an action against a public entity, Plaintiff "must set forth facts in [her] Complaint sufficiently detailed and specific to support an inference that each of the statutory elements is satisfied. General allegations are regarded as inadequate." (Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal. App. 3d 1, 5.) When complaints against public entities contain "only conclusory or inferential claims of factual causation, rather than particularized allegations of fact" they are subject to demurrer.” (State Dept. of State Hosp. v. Sup. Ct. (Novoa) (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 339, 358.)

First Cause of Action: Negligent Supervision

The elements of a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision are: (1) the employer’s hiring, retaining, or supervising an employee; (2) the employee was incompetent or unfit; (3) the employer had reason to believe undue risk of harm would exist because of the employment; and (4) harm occurs. (Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828, 836-837.)

In its motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege (1) which Defendant’s staff supervised her; (2) which of Defendant’s staff were supposed to supervise her; (3) where Defendant's staff were located or where they should have been located and when they should have been at their required posting; (4) which Defendant staff failed to summon emergency medical responders/law enforcement; ( 5) what Plaintiffs alleged injuries were and their extent and how greater supervision could have prevented Plaintiffs alleged injuries; ( 6) which Defendant staff were on notice of alleged frequent fights at Mayfair High School and when and how they were on notice; (7) which Defendant staff were on notice that Sanchez was allegedly a bully and when and how they were on notice; (8) how Defendant's alleged failure to report Plaintiff's fight to medical responders/law enforcement after the fact caused or could have prevented Plaintiffs alleged injury; and (9) how long it look Defendant staff to arrive and separate Plaintiff and Sanchez.

Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion, accordingly they do not demonstrate how their Complaint is particularized to put Defendant on notice.

Further, having reviewed the Complaint the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs have pleaded with particularity their claims.

Accordingly, the Demurrer as to the First Cause of Action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

Second Cause of Action: Violation of Civil Code section 52.1

Civil Code section 52.1 bans interference with an individual's rights by threat, intimidation, or coercion and states: If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. (Civil Code § 52.1 (b).) In addition to claims brought by the Attorney General, district attorneys, and city attorneys, Civil Code section 52.1 (c) allows individuals whose exercise or enjoyment or rights has been interfered with to bring claims on their own behalf.

"The essence of a Bane Act claim is that the defendant, by the specified improper means (i.e., "threats, intimidation or coercion"), tried to or did prevent the plaintiff from doing something he or she had the right to do under the law or to force the plaintiff to do something that he or she was not required to do under the law." (Austin B. v. Escondido Union Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 860, 883.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to state a Bane Act claim as to Defendant because she does not allege any facts showing that Defendant interfered with any of her rights under federal or state law through "threats, intimidation, or coercion." Plaintiff only alleges threat, intimidation, or coercion by Defendant Sanchez. (Complaint, ¶ 5.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.