Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03540, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03540    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Mark Berumen’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Defendant Mark Berumen’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Mark Berumen’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED.  Since Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant’s Demurrer, the court will hear from Plaintiff on whether leave to amend should be granted.

Defendant Mark Berumen’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is deemed MOOT.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from alleged wrongful arrests. In November 2020, Defendant Mark Berumen, a police officer with the Baldwin Park Police Department, responded to a neighborhood dispute involving Plaintiff Roberto Lopez Valencia. Lopez Valencia alleges Berumen used excessive force to detain Lopez Valencia by aggressively grabbing and twisting Lopez Valencia’s arm when Lopez Valencia was not resisting. Lopez Valencia alleges Berumen then arrested Lopez Valencia for violating an allegedly non-existent restraining order. Lopez Valencia alleges Berumen falsely accused Lopez Valencia of making threats against neighbors and claimed Lopez Valencia had mental problems.

In January 2021, Lopez Valencia alleges Berumen attempted to arrest Lopez Valencia in front of the Baldwin Park Police Department for another violation of a restraining order that Lopez Valencia alleges does not exist. In July 2022, Lopez Valencia alleges Berumen and other police officers confronted Lopez Valencia at the city hall and arrested Lopez Valencia after Lopez Valencia had filed a complaint against them. In May 2023, Lopez Valencia alleges Berumen arrested Lopez Valencia for alleged child endangerment and falsely claimed to have served a previous restraining order on Lopez Valencia.

On November 16, 2023, Lopez Valencia filed a complaint against Berumen.

On February 20, 2024, Berumen filed the present demurrer and motion to strike. Prior to filing on February 15, Berumen’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with Lopez Valencia and was unable to reach a resolution. (O’Shea Decl., ¶ 5.)

A hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike is set for March 21, 2024. A case management conference is also set for April 15.

ANALYSIS

Berumen demurs to Lopez Valencia’s entire Complaint on the grounds that (1) the Complaint is uncertain, (2) Lopez Valencia failed to comply with claim presentation requirements, (3) the Complaint is time-barred, and (4) the Complaint is insufficiently pled. For the following reasons, the court SUSTAINS Berumen’s demurrer on the grounds that the Complaint is uncertain and fails to comply with claim presentation requirements.

Legal Standard

A party may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) When considering demurrers, courts accept all well pleaded facts as true. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, at p. 747.)

Claims Presentation Requirements

Berumen argues Lopez Valencia’s state law claims are insufficiently pled because they fail to allege compliance with claims presentation requirements. The court agrees.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to the Government Claims Act, “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.” (Gov. Code, § 945.4.) “A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property” must be within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).)

With certain exceptions, “[t]he filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of any cause of action against the public entity and is therefore an element that a plaintiff is required to prove in order to prevail.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 767.) “If a complaint does not allege facts showing that a claim was timely made, or that compliance with the claims statutes is excused, it is subject to demurrer.” (J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School Dist. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 648, 652.)

Discussion

In this case, the Complaint fails to allege any facts that establish Lopez Valencia complied with the applicable claim requirements and submitted a timely notice of claim to the applicable public entity. While Lopez Valencia has brought an action against Berumen individually, “one who sues a public employee on the basis of acts or omissions in the scope of the defendant's employment have filed a claim against the public-entity employer pursuant to the procedure for claims against public entities.” (Briggs v. Lawrence (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 605, 613.) Because the present action is based on Berumen’s actions as a police officer, the present action is treated as a claim against Berumen’s public entity employer and compliance with the claim presentation requirements is required.

Accordingly, because the Complaint fails to allege compliance with claim presentation requirements, Berumen’s demurrer to Lopez Valencia’s state law claims is SUSTAINED.

Uncertainty

Berumen also contends the Complaint is uncertain. The court agrees.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f), a party may demur to a pleading on the grounds that it is “uncertain” which requires the pleading to be “ambiguous unintelligible.” But “demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

Discussion

In this case, while any state law claims are insufficiently pled pursuant to the claim presentation requirements noted above, compliance with claim presentation requirements is not required for federal civil rights claims. (The Kind & Compassionate v. City of Long Beach (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 116, 125.) But to the extent Lopez Valencia asserts any, the court finds they are uncertain. Lopez Valencia fails to separately list each asserted cause of action and provide the relevant facts alleged for each cause of action. And while Lopez Valencia invokes terms like discrimination, harassment, retaliation, violation of civil rights, and violation of Fourth Amendment, Lopez Valencia fails to identify the specific federal provisions violated.

Accordingly, Berumen’s demurrer on this ground is also SUSTAINED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Berumen’s demurrer to Lopez Valencia’s Complaint is SUSTAINED. Since Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant’s Demurrer, the court will hear from Plaintiff on whether leave to amend should be granted.

Based on the above analysis, Berumen’s motion to strike is DEEMED MOOT.