Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00043730-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-12-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 21, 2023

12/22/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00043730-CU-PO-CTL ALBRIGHT VS SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF JESSICA NICOLE ALRIGHT'S COMPLAINT is OVERRULED.

Defendant SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION ('Defendant') demurs to Plaintiff JESSICA NICOLE ALBRIGHT's ('Plaintiff') complaint on two grounds. First, Defendant asserts the complaint is uncertain as it lumps the named defendants all together without specifying who did what. Second, Defendant asserts the rejected government claim differs too much from the complaint such that it did not properly give Defendant a chance to investigate the claim, which is impermissible. Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted.

When considering a demurrer, '[t]he pleading must be read as if it contained all matters of which the court could properly take judicial notice even in the face of allegations in the pleading to the contrary.' (Weiner v. Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 39, 47.) 'A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.' (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Demurrer based on claims uncertainty are disfavored. While the Court agrees the allegations are ambiguous because they lumped all the named defendants together, the allegations are not so ambiguous as to preclude Defendant's understanding of the nature of the claim. Plaintiff alleges 'Plaintiff was unexpectedly and violently assaulted by Defendant CHERYL MENDED. Plaintiff and other tenants had previously complained to Defendant JOHN DOE, an employee of Defendants SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION...of Defendant CHERYL MENDED's aggressive and violent behavior.' (Complaint, ¶ 13.) From these allegations Defendant could understand that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are based on the acts and/or omissions of its employee, Defendant JOHN DOE. In any event, discovery can clarify Plaintiff's claims. The demurrer as to uncertainty is overruled.

Under the Government Claims Act, 'no person may sue a public entity or public employee for damages unless such person has presented a timely written claim to the public entity, which the public entity has then rejected.' (Apollo v. Gyaami (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1486 fn. 14.) The purpose of the claim presentation requirement 'is 'to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.' (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 455 [115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701].) ... As the purpose of the claim is to give the government entity notice sufficient for it to investigate Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3033658  65 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ALBRIGHT VS SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION [IMAGED]  37-2022-00043730-CU-PO-CTL and evaluate the claim, not to eliminate meritorious actions (Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 225 [267 Cal.Rptr. 13]), the claims statute 'should not be applied to snare the unwary where its purpose has been satisfied' (Elias v. San Bernardino County Flood Control Dist. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 70, 74 [135 Cal.Rptr. 621]).' (Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 446, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 176, 99 P.3d 500 (Stockett).) (Plata v. City of San Jose (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 736, 748.) 'If the claim is rejected and the plaintiff ultimately files a complaint against the public entity, the facts underlying each cause of action in the complaint must have been fairly reflected in a timely claim.' (Id. at 748 [Citation omitted].) The court in Plata further explained when the level of detail is a problem: The claim, however, need not specify each particular act or omission later proven to have caused the injury. [Citation.] A complaint's fuller exposition of the factual basis beyond that given in the claim is not fatal, so long as the complaint is not based on an 'entirely different set of facts.' (Stevenson v. San Francisco Housing Authority (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 269, 278 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 398].) Only where there has been a 'complete shift in allegations, usually involving an effort to premise civil liability on acts or omissions committed at different times or by different persons than those described in the claim,' have courts generally found the complaint barred. [Citation.] Where the complaint merely elaborates or adds further detail to a claim, but is predicated on the same fundamental actions or failures to act by the defendants, courts have generally found the claim fairly reflects the facts pled in the complaint. (White v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1505, 1510–1511 [275 Cal.Rptr. 706].)' (Stockett, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 447, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 176, 99 P.3d 500.) (Plata, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th 736, 748–749.) The Court finds that this is not a case where the complaint is based on an entirely different set of facts.

Rather, the one inconsistency is Plaintiff's indication in the claim that no Defendant employee 'caused the damage or injury.' However, the claim also indicates Defendant 'or its employees were at fault' because Defendant 'failed to properly provide a secure location for tenants.' (Exhibit B.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant 'knew or should have known that Defendants JOHN DOE was incompetent and unfit and that his incompetence and unfitness created a particular risk to others, including Plaintiff.' (Complaint, ¶ 47.) Plaintiff also alleges in the complaint that 'Defendant JOHN DOE's incompetence and unfitness harmed Plaintiff.' (Complaint, ¶ 48.) The Court finds the claim sufficiently reflects the facts pled in the complaint. Defendant should have been able to know that some employee of Defendant would have been responsible for failing 'to properly provide a secure location for tenants' since an entity such as Defendant can only act via its employees and/or agents. The complaint slightly expands on the claim by specifying that an unidentified employee, John Doe, was incompetent and that Defendant knew 'of Defendant CHERYL MENDED's aggressive and violent behavior.' (Complaint, ¶ 13.) The Court understands that Plaintiff confusingly indicates in the claim that no employee was involved in causing Plaintiff's injury. However, Defendant could have understood this was based on a confusion as to whether the employee directly caused the injury since elsewhere in the claim Plaintiff indicates an employee must have been involved in failing 'to properly provide a secure location for tenants.'owev Moreover, Plaintiff has substantially complied with the requirements of Government Code section 910.

Government Code section 910 provides: A claim shall be presented by the claimant or by a person acting on his or her behalf and shall show all of the following: (a) The name and post office address of the claimant.

(b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.

(c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3033658  65 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ALBRIGHT VS SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION [IMAGED]  37-2022-00043730-CU-PO-CTL (d) A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.

(e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.

(f) The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.

(Gov. Code, § 910 [Emphasis added].) 'Under the doctrine of substantial compliance the court may conclude a claim is valid if it substantially complies with all of the statutory requirements for valid claim even though it is technically deficient in one or more particulars.' (Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 713.) The Court finds Plaintiffs substantially complied for the reasons discussed above. The demurrer is overruled.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3033658  65