Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00048669-CU-CR-CTL, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Civil Rights Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00048669-CU-CR-CTL GRAYTON VS METROPOLITIAN AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 03/13/2023

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint (ROA 22) Defendants Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee on Anti-Poverty of San Diego, Arnulfo Manriquez, Sharon A. Turner, 'Nikki,' and Marisol Tipez's Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the first, second, third, fourth, seventh, and eighth causes of action. The Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the fifth, sixth, and ninth causes of action.

As to Plaintiff's first cause of action for 'intentional deceit and misrepresentation of a material fact with knowledge of falsity negligent misrepresentation pursuant to Cal Civ, Code § 1572, § 1709, § 1710,' the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend on the grounds it is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e), (f).) Even from the title of the cause of action, it is not clear what form of deceit Plaintiff is attempting to allege (intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, or both.) Further, Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to state a claim for either intentional or negligent misrepresentation, and the complaint appears to be based on conduct other than the communication of information.

As to Plaintiff's second cause of action for civil assault, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend on the grounds it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) Plaintiff does not allege any facts of assault in his pleading.

As to Plaintiff's third cause of action for negligence, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend on the grounds it is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 430.10(e), (f).) It is not clear what facts might form the basis of Plaintiff's negligence claim, and the elements of negligence are not sufficiently alleged. To the contrary, Plaintiff states that '[t]his case is about Intentional Tortious Misconduct,' not negligence. (ROA 37, at 18[sic]:4.) As to Plaintiff's fourth cause of action for 'negligent hiring, retaining, supervising, directing, and controlling,' the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend on the grounds it is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e), (f).) The facts that may form the basis of this cause of action are unclear and not sufficiently alleged.

As to Plaintiff's fifth cause of action for 'vicarious liability negligent performance of duty' and sixth cause of action for 'respondeat superior,' the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e), (f).) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041624  13 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GRAYTON VS METROPOLITIAN AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE  37-2022-00048669-CU-CR-CTL Vicarious liability and respondeat superior are not causes of action, but theories of liability that are largely or entirely duplicative of each other. The theories do not provide a basis for independent causes of action, regardless of what facts might be cited in support of them.

As to Plaintiff's seventh cause of action for violation of the Unruh Act, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend on the grounds the FAC is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e), (f).) Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege facts of denial of equal access to accommodations on the basis of any protected characteristic.

As to Plaintiff's eighth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend on the ground that the FAC contains only a conclusory allegation that the conduct involved is sufficiently outrageous to support this claim, an allegation that is belied by the allegation that 'the conduct fell below the ordinary standard of care' and the other factual allegations in the complaint. (FAC ¶¶ 52, 77, 79, 145.) This cause of action also fails as pled since the alleged emotional distress is not sufficiently severe to support the claim. (FAC ¶¶ 81, 82.) As to Plaintiff's ninth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend on the ground that negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent cause of action, but is merely a cause of action for negligence, and therefore duplicates the third cause of action for negligence. This defect cannot be cured by the pleading of additional or different facts.

Plaintiff Maurice Grayton is to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before November 27, 2023.

Each cause of action is to be separately stated and pled in the body of the pleading. (Cal. R. Court, rule 2.112.) Each cause of action must be numbered, must identify the party asserting it, and must identify the defendants to whom it is directed. (Ibid.) Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint (ROA 26) Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

As to Defendants' request to strike Plaintiff's punitive damages allegations, the motion is moot in light of the court's ruling on the demurrer.

As to Defendants' request to strike portions of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on the grounds they are improper and/or irrelevant, Defendants have not analyzed the allegations nor explained why it would be appropriate for the court to strike the allegations.

The Court's Sua Sponte Order Striking a Portion of the First Amended Complaint The court orders the First Amended Complaint stricken on its own motion to the extent the causes of action are asserted by Grayton on behalf of Desiree Murillo. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.) Grayton has the right to represent himself and his own interests in this lawsuit. (Baba v. Board of Supervisors (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 504, 523.) However, he does not have the right to represent Murillo in this action. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125; see Fink v. Shemtov, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 599, 609, noting the unauthorized practice of law includes the preparation of legal documents.) Further, Grayton does not have standing to assert the claims in this case on Murillo's behalf, as Grayton is not the real party in interest as to any potential claims held by Murillo. (Code Civ. Proc. § 367.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041624  13