Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV27102, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV27102    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 17, 2025 

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter 

Demurrer to Complaint 

Moving Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles 

Responding Party: Plaintiff David Rojas 

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED. 

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE 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 October 16, 2024, Plaintiff David Rojas sued Defendant City of Los Angeles, asserting one cause of action for statutory indemnity. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, as Plaintiff's employer, was required to provide defense and indemnity in an underlying lawsuit in which Plaintiff was sued for conduct that occurred while on duty as a police officer. 

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 demurs to the complaint on the grounds that it is barred by the res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the statute of limitations. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the claim presentation requirements for suit against a public entity. 

A. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel 

The doctrine of res judicata precludes the relitigation of certain matters which have been resolved in a prior proceeding under certain circumstances. (Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 550, 556.) “Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896.) “Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings.” (Id.) 

“Issue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action.”  (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824.)  “Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action.”  (Id.)  “[I]ssue preclusion applies: (1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with that party.”  (Id. at 825.) 

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's claim is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel because the claim was already adjudicated in the underlying lawsuit, Baggett, et al v. David Rojas, et al, Case No. 20STCV30229. Defendant represents that Plaintiff filed a cross-complaint against Defendant for statutory indemnity in the underlying lawsuit. Shortly before trial, Plaintiff requested leave to amend to change the statute providing for indemnity from the Labor Code (applying to private employers) to the Government Code (applying to public employers.) The judge denied the motion for leave, finding that amendment would be prejudicial to Defendant. Plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed the cross-complaint without prejudice and filed this action. 

These facts do not meet the criteria for res judicata or collateral estoppel. There was no determination on the merits of Plaintiff's claims in the underlying suit, and the causes of action here are not the same as in the underlying suit. The demurrer cannot be sustained on this basis. 

B. Statute of Limitations and Claim Presentation 

                Defendant argues that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and the failure to file a timely government tort claim. Defendant contends that the judge in the underlying lawsuit stated so in the ruling denying leave to amend, and this Court may not “re-evaluate” that ruling. But Defendant does not address how the statute of limitations or untimely tort claim applies to the causes of action this suit, merely asserting that the Court must adopt the ruling from Baggett. The demurrer cannot be sustained on this basis. 

                Defendant's demurrer is OVERRULED.