Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00043730-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 14, 2024

03/15/2024  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 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendant Department of Housing and Community Development ('Defendant') demurs to Plaintiff JESSICA NICOLE ALBRIGHT's ('Plaintiff') complaint on three grounds. Defendant asserts the complaint fails to state a claim since no statutory basis is identified and the causes of action are common law causes of action, which are not permitted against public entities. Defendant also asserts the allegations do not indicate why Plaintiff believes 'Defendant JOHN DOE' was an employee of Defendant.

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.) '[W]e give the pleading a reasonable interpretation by reading it as a whole and all of its parts in their context.' (Mead v. Sanwa Bank California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 561, 564.) 'A complaint must contain '[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.' (§ 425.10, subd. (a)(1).) This fact-pleading requirement obligates the plaintiff to allege ultimate facts that 'as a whole apprise[ ] the adversary of the factual basis of the claim. [Citations.]' (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 886 [Citation omitted].) A complaint is generally sufficient ''so long as [it] gives notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense.'' (Morris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 279, 292 [Citation omitted].) 'What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief.' (Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Truck Ins Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099 [Citation omitted; Italics in original].) Defendant is correct that Plaintiff may not assert common law tort claims against it, and any claim against the public entity must be based on a statute. (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1183.) However, 'a court is not bound by the captions or labels of a cause of action in a pleading. The nature and character of a pleading is to be determined from the facts alleged, not the name given by the pleader to the cause of action.' (Ananda Church of Self-Realization v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1281.) Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendant is liable for the conduct of its employee under Government Code section 815.2. (Complaint, ¶¶ 45, 51.) 'A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3045102  63 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ALBRIGHT VS SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION [IMAGED]  37-2022-00043730-CU-PO-CTL would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.' (Gov. Code, § 815.2(a).) 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...[Defendant]...of Defendant CHERYL MENDED's aggressive and violent behavior.' (Complaint, ¶ 13.) 'Defendants, and each of them, formed a special relationship between the staff and/or personnel and subject premises resulting in the affirmative duty on the staff and/or personnel to take all reasonable steps to protect the occupants of the subject premises.' (Complaint, ¶ 39.) 'Additionally, because of the special relationship between Plaintiff, the parent of an enrolled student, and the subject premises...[Defendant]...had a duty to control Defendant CHERYL MENDED and protect Plaintiff from physical and mental harm.' (Complaint, ¶ 40.) 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, who formed a special relationship with Plaintiff. While the Court understands Defendant's concern that Plaintiff alleges Defendant JOHN DOE was employed by multiple public entities and that Plaintiff does not provide more specifics of how a special relationship was formed, Plaintiff has alleged ultimate facts, which is sufficient. 'It is only necessary for a plaintiff to plead ultimate facts.' (Doheny Park, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at 1085.) Further, the Court must assume the facts alleged are true.

Notwithstanding the above, the Court finds Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support what caused Plaintiff to believe Defendant JOHN DOE was an employee of Defendant. 'A [p]laintiff may allege on information and belief any matters that are not within his personal knowledge, if he has information leading him to believe that the allegations are true.' (Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1158 [Citation and quotes omitted].) Without pleading a proper connection between Defendant JOHN DOE and Defendant, the allegations fail. The demurrer is sustained.

Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion [...] Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule....' (McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-04.) The face of the complaint does not indicate that it is incapable of being amended. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff ten (10) days leave to amend the complaint.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3045102  63