Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01662, Date: 2024-07-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV01662 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 7/26/24
Case #23CHCV01662
DEMURRER &
MOTION TO STRIKE TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Demurrer & Motion to Strike filed on 5/8/24.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Emilio Valdovinos and Jaime
Madrigal
NOTICE: ok
Demurrer is to the 1st – 5th causes
of action:
1. Dangerous
Condition of Public Property
2.
Negligent Hiring/Training/Supervision/Retention
3.
Failure to Protect From Harm, Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
Violation (42 U.S.C. §1983)
4.
Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Policies and Customs (42 U.S.C.
§1983)
5.
Supervisory Liability for Unconstitutional Policies, Procedures,
Practices and Customs (42 U.S.C. §1983)
6. Negligence (not alleged against Moving
Parties)
RELIEF REQUESTED IN MOTION TO STRIKE: An order
striking portions of the complaint.
RULING: The demurrer and motion to strike are
placed off calendar as moot.
On 6/8/23, Plaintiffs Emilio Valdovinos and Jaime
Madrigal filed this action against Los Angeles County Fire Department;
California Fire Department; State of California – California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation; State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and
Does 1-50 for: (1) Dangerous Condition of Public Property; (2) Negligent
Hiring/ Training/ Supervision/Retention; (3) Failure to Protect From Harm,
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Violation (42 U.S.C. §1983); (4) Municipal
Liability for Unconstitutional Policies and Customs (42 U.S.C. §1983); (5) Supervisory
Liability for Unconstitutional Policies, Procedures, Practices and Customs (42
U.S.C. §1983) and (6) Negligence.
On 5/8/24, Defendant Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (Cal Fire) erroneously sued as the “California Fire Department” and
the “State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection” filed and served the instant
demurrer as to all causes of action alleged against these defendants (1st
– 5th causes of action) and the instant motion to strike seeking an
order striking portions of the complaint.
Plaintiffs have not opposed he demurrer or motion to
strike. Rather, on 6/28/24, Plaintiffs
filed a Request for Dismissal of the entire complaint with prejudice as to
Defendant State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection which was entered that
same day and on 7/17/24, Plaintiffs filed another Request for Dismissal of the
complaint without prejudice as to Defendants California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
which was entered that same day.
Based on the above-mentioned dismissals, the demurrer and
motion to strike are moot.