Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Reyes v. City of Santa Ana, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Defendants City of Santa Ana, Kameron Henderson, Matthew D. Guzman, Justin L. Collins, Jonathon Perez, Anh Tu S. Phan, Kenneth Gray, and Daniel Carrillo’s Demurrer to Complaint

Defendants City of Santa Ana, Kameron Henderson, Matthew D. Guzman, Justin L. Collins, Jonathon Perez, Anh Tu S. Phan, Kenneth Gray, and Daniel Carrillo’s demurrer to plaintiff Rogelio Reyes’s complaint.  Defendant Matthew D. Wharton is not a party to the demurrer.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  For the following reasons, defendants’ demurrer is overruled.

In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint.  Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations.  Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.  Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer.  Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.  Because a demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint, a court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice.  Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 n.7.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges one cause of action for “false arrest/false imprisonment.”  Defendants argue plaintiff cannot state this claim against defendants Henderson, Guzman, Collins, Perez, Phan, Gray, and Carrillo under Penal Code section 847(b)(1) because a federal district court has already ruled those defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff.  Defendants argue that because plaintiff allegedly cannot state this claim against defendants Henderson, Guzman, Collins, Perez, Phan, Gray, and Carrillo, plaintiff also cannot state the claim against the City of Santa Ana.

Plaintiff initially filed a lawsuit addressing the events underlying this case in federal district court.  The federal district court granted summary judgment for defendants, ruling, inter alia, that the individual defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, that Penal Code section 847(b)(1) applied, and that plaintiff therefore could not prevail on his false arrest/false imprisonment cause of action.

The federal appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment order.  The appellate court reversed the order granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s false arrest/false imprisonment claim.  The appellate court ruled that while probable cause is necessary to establish an arrest’s lawfulness, it is not by itself sufficient to do.  The court stated that Penal Code section 847(b)(1) does not incorporate federal qualified immunity concepts.  The court ruled:  “Because the district [court] misapplied California law and there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Officers violated Appellant’s constitutional rights when they arrested him, we reverse summary judgment on the California false arrest claim and remand.” 

After remand, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging five causes of action, including false arrest/false imprisonment.  Defendants moved for summary judgment as to the false arrest/false imprisonment claim.  The district court denied the motion.  The district court ruled:  “This Court previously found that the arrest by [the] Officer Defendants was unlawful because it was a warrantless arrest on the curtilage of Plaintiff’s home, conducted in the absence of exigent circumstances, even when the Officer Defendants had probable cause. . . .  California Penal Code Section 847(b)(1) does not apply.  Accordingly, the court denies Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim for false arrest or false imprisonment under California law.”

The district court ultimately adjudicated or dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims other that the false arrest/false imprisonment claim, over which the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.  Plaintiff thereafter filed this lawsuit in state court.

Defendants assert collateral estoppel (i.e., issue preclusion) precludes plaintiff from relitigating in this case the district court’s finding that the individual defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff.  The court cannot determine on this sparse record whether collateral estoppel applies to bar litigation of the alleged probable cause to arrest plaintiff. 

Even if the court could make that determination at this juncture, however, defendants’ demurrer would still be overruled.  The court also cannot determine based on the pleadings whether Penal Code section 847(b)(1) applies.  This record is insufficient for the court to make that determination at this stage.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted.  A court may take judicial notice of the existence of a document in a court file, including the truth of results reached, but a court may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions and court files.  Richtek USA, Inc. v. UPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 658. 

Defendants to give notice.