Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 20NWCV00592, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00592    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: SEC

MENDOZA v. CITY OF MAYWOOD

CASE NO.: 20NWCV00592

HEARING:  09/01/22

JUDGE:  OLIVIA ROSALES

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants CITY OF MAYWOOD; EDDIE DE LA RIVA; REYNA MENDEZ; and CARMEN PEREZ’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is MOOT in part and OVERRULED in part. The Second Cause of Action for Attempted Civil Extortion is STRICKEN.

Opposing Party to give notice.

This RICO action was filed by Plaintiffs JOSE MENDOZA and LA LABS, INC. on October 23, 2020. January 25, 2022, the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed.

The relevant facts, as summarized by Plaintiffs in the SAC, are as follows: “Mayor De La Riva and the officials of Maywood never intended on approving plaintiff’s business plans for the property located at 4000 East Slauson Avenue. To justify defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s application, De La Riva, Mendez and Perez set out to besmirch plaintiff’s favorable reputation by telling other business owners’ plaintiff had deceived them about the nature of his business. Mendez and Perez began falsely informing other business owners plaintiff’s business plan was akin to a dispensary whereby customers could by marijuana, and therefore the parking would become scarcer, the foot traffic would include those seeking marijuana products, and the location would emit odor due to the large quantities of marijuana being held and sored. They represented to Mendoza’s neighbors and fellow business owners that Mendoza had lied to them and is therefore of poor and untrustworthy character.” (SAC ¶71.) “Defendant’s statements and conduct showed Mendoza his plans would be approved contingent upon his compliance with Maywood’s process by way of meetings, interviews, phase completions and plaintiff’s action on Maywood’s recommendations. At no point was this true from defendant’s perspective. However, plaintiff continued to pursue the business plans in a good faith belief in defendant’s statements and conduct. After having seen the process and after having addressed factors which had no bearing on the final decision, Mendoza learned his approval was determined on his non-willingness to pay the extortion demand. The meetings, interviews, and conditions expressed therein were merely pretextual to the denial defendant knew would be issued, and indeed defendant did issue the denial before the final meeting took place which was when plaintiff was to again demonstrate compliance with the process by addressing the Maywood official’s concerns on four specific points to which plaintiff prepared a response.” (SAC ¶75.)

The SAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Civil RICO; (2) Attempted Civil Extortion; (3) Defamation, Slander Per Se; and (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.  

Defendants CITY OF MAYWOOD (“City”); EDDIE DE LA RIVA; RENA MENDEZ; and CARMEN PEREZ (collectively “Individual Defendants”) (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants generally demur to the second and third causes of action.

Second Cause of Action – Attempted Civil Extortion (against All Defendants)

The demurrer to the second cause of action of Attempted Civil Extortion was previously SUSTAINED without leave to amend on January 14, 2022.

The demurrer to the second cause of action is MOOT. The entire second cause of action for Attempted Civil Extortion is STRICKEN from the SAC.

Third Cause of Action – Defamation/Slander Per Se (against the City)

“A privileged publication or broadcast is one made: (a) In the proper discharge of an official duty. (b) In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding, (3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law, or (4) in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law….” The privilege extends to steps taken prior thereto, or afterwards. (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1057.)

Although the litigation privilege applies to Mendez’s statements made before and during hearings, Plaintiff alleges that statements were also made outside of any hearings. “[A] general demurrer does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action and if any part of a cause of action is properly pleaded, the demurrer will be overruled.” (Elder v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2012) 505 Cal.App.4th 841,856, fn. 14) Liberally construing the pleading in favor of Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have managed to plead around the litigation privilege for purposes of surviving demurrer, where some of the alleged statements were made by officials outside of official proceedings. (SAC ¶¶100, 102, 105.)