Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV12746, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12746    Hearing Date: March 1, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 1, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Santa Monica Police Activities League

Responding Party: Plaintiffs John UNB Doe, John USS Doe, and John UNG Doe

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On July 3, 2023, Plaintiffs John UNB Doe, John USS Doe, and John UNG Doe filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants City of Santa Monica and Santa Monica Police Activities League, asserting causes of action for (1) sexual assault; (2) negligence; (3) negligent failure to educate, train or warn; and (4) violation of the Bane Act. Plaintiffs allege they were sexually abused as children by City of Santa Monica police officer Eric Uller while attending the City’s youth programing.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Defendant Santa Monica Police Activities League demurs to the first amended complaint on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations.

CCP § 340.1 acts to extend the statute of limitations for “an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault.” Under this statute, a plaintiff must file a complaint by the later of either: (1) the revival period between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022; or (2) “within 22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within five years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual assault, whichever period expires later.” Plaintiffs filed the complaint June 5, 2023. The 22-year period has expired for at least one Plaintiff.

In opposition, Plaintiffs assert the claims are timely under COVID-19 Emergency Rule 9, which tolled statutes of limitation for 178 days from April 6, 2020 through October 1, 2020. That 178 days of tolling is tacked onto the end of the limitations period, which was December 31, 2022. 178 days from December 31, 2022, was June 27, 2023. Plaintiffs cite the recent Court of Appeal opinion that addressed this issue and ruled in favor of Plaintiffs’ position: Roe v. Doe 1 (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 965.

In reply, Defendant acknowledges this case, but requests that the Court certify its order for immediate writ review under CCP § 166.1. Defendant asserts Roe was decided without adversarial briefing and that questions of law remain. The Court sees no reason to certify this ruling for writ review. The Court of Appeal has directly addressed the issue.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.