Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00013134-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 10, 2023

08/11/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00013134-CU-WM-CTL HOODY VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants County of San Diego and Housing Authority of the County of San Diego's demurrer to the petition for writ of mandate is SUSTAINED.

Defendants' request for judicial notice is granted.

A demurrer shall be sustained if the pleading 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) 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 may also consider matters that have been judicially noticed. (Id.) 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, Defendants demur to the entire petition on two separate and distinct grounds. First, Defendants argue that each of the four causes of action in the complaint require that Petitioner Julie Hoody was denied a public benefit, but no such denial was sufficiently alleged in the petition. Second, Defendants argue that writ relief is unavailable because the petition fails to adequately allege a ministerial duty or that Defendants abused their discretion in carrying out 'an act which the law specifically enjoins.' (Bull Field, LLC v. Merced Irrigation Dist. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 442, 452.) Additionally, Defendants argue the Unruh Act claim cannot survive demurrer because the County is not a 'business establishment' within the meaning of the statute, and the Government Code section 11135 claim is inadequately plead because the petition does not allege the program or activity at issue is State funded.

The court agrees the petition does not allege denial of a public benefit. More specifically, a benefit of Section 8 is not assistance in finding an eligible housing unit once a voucher is provided. (Taylor v. The Housing Authority of New Haven (D.Conn., Mar. 29, 2010) 267 F.R.D. 36, 57 ['But this benefit does not include help finding housing, the provision of housing, or a guarantee that a participant will find suitable housing.'].) Rather, the 'benefit' includes: 'the provision of a voucher to a participant to find a unit; monthly assistance payments to a landlord to cover some portion of the cost of renting a private dwelling; and, upon request, assistance in a family's negotiation of a 'reasonable rent.'' (Id.) Moreover, implementing regulations like 24 C.F.R. § 8.28(a) do not separately confer any 'benefits' upon which a claim under section 504 or the ADA may be based. (See id. at pp. 41-43.) Thus, Petitioner's reliance on such regulations to allege denial of their 'benefits' is unavailing.

The court also agrees that Petitioner has failed to adequately allege a ministerial duty that Defendants Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2993014  12 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HOODY VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS  37-2023-00013134-CU-WM-CTL failed to satisfy. None of the regulations or statutory language referenced in the petition excludes some degree of discretion on the part of Defendants, and the petition does not adequately allege abuse of such discretion. Moreover, the reference to claims under Government Code section 815.6 is irrelevant, as no such claim has been made in this petition.

The court further agrees Defendants are not business establishments within the meaning of the Unruh Act; thus, any claim premised on that statute cannot survive demurrer. (Brennon B. v. Superior Court of Contract Costa County (2022) 13 Cal.5th 662, 674-78.) Finally, although the petition does allege that Defendants receive state funding, it does not allege that the program or activity at issue here (i.e., Section 8 Housing) implemented by Defendants receives state funding, as required by Government Code section 11135.

Accordingly, Defendants' demurrer is sustained.

The court will hear from the parties on whether Petitioner should be granted leave to amend the petition.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2993014  12