Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00012802-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 20, 2023

10/20/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00012802-CU-PO-CTL ASHFORD VS CASE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Linda Case's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

'A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.' (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court shall give the complaint a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Here, Defendant's primary argument is that Plaintiff Burk Ashford's entire complaint is founded on conduct protected by the litigation privilege, as Plaintiff's claims against Defendant plainly arise out of the parties' respective attempts to obtain restraining orders in prior litigation. (Complaint, pg. 6; FAC, pg. 7.) The court agrees; Plaintiff's claims cannot survive demurrer due to the litigation privilege.

'A plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case if the litigation privilege precludes a defendant's liability on the claim.' (Timothy W. v. Julie W. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 648, 661; see also Action Apartment Association, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1241 ['The principal purpose of the litigation privilege is to afford litigants and witnesses the utmost freedom of access to the courts without fear of being harassed subsequently by derivative tort actions.'].) The privilege applies to conduct: (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that has some connection or logical relation to the action.

(Action Apartment Association, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1241.) 'The privilege is not limited to statements made during a trial or other proceedings, but may extend to steps taken prior thereto, or afterwards.' (Id.) Here, Plaintiff's claims are primarily, if not entirely, premised upon conduct undertaken by Defendant in prior litigation to achieve her litigation objectives in connection with the respective restraining orders.

(See Complaint at pp. 4-5; FAC at p. 7.) The litigation privilege effectively immunizes Defendant from liability for such claims. (See Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205, 215-216.) Accordingly, Defendant's demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3022480  54