Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCP00451, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCP00451    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: G

Respondent Pomona College’s Demurrer to Petitioner Vincent Abazie’s Petition

Respondent: Petitioner Vincent Abazie

Respondent Pomona College’s Motion to Strike Portions of Petitioner’s Petition

Respondent: Petitioner Vincent Abazie

TENTATIVE RULING

Respondent Pomona College’s Demurrer to Petitioner Vincent Abazie’s Petition is OVERRULED.

Respondent Pomona College’s Motion to Strike Portions of Petitioner’s Petition is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for a writ of administrative mandamus. In August 2018, Petitioner Vincent Abazie enrolled as a student at Respondent Pomona College. In January 2023, Abazie alleges Pomona College breached their enrollment agreement by suspending Abazie without cause. After Abazie’s initial appeal was rejected, Abazie filed a petition with Pomona College that was denied in February 2023.

On September 20, 2024, Abazie filed a petition against Pomona College seeking a writ of administrative mandamus.

On January 23, 2025, Pomona College filed the present demurrer and motion to strike. Prior to filing on January 9, 2025, Pomona College’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with Abazie and was unable to reach a resolution. (Karagueuzian Decl., ¶ 6.)

A hearing on the present demurrer and motion to strike is set for February 27, 2025.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Pomona College requests the court take judicial notice of (1) Abazie’s notice of suspension, (2) Abazie’s suspension appeal, (3) their denial of Abazie’s appeal, and (4) their Low Grade Notifications/Academic Advisories policy pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h). This provision allows the court to take judicial notice of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).) “It is intended to encompass facts that are widely accepted and easily verified.” (Sanchez v. Kern Emergency Medical Transportation Corp. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 146, 154.) But the communications between Pomona College and Abazie as well as Pomona College’s policies are not sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Nor do they involve “widely accepted and easily verified” facts. Further, the court finds the supporting authorities cited by Pomona College are inapplicable.

In Page v. Los Angeles County Probation Dept. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Page), the Second District Court of Appeal noted the trial court took judicial notice of hearing records without determining if the trial court was correct and without stating pursuant to which statutory provision the records were judicially noticeable. (Id., at p. 1139, fn. 2.) Notably, the hearing in that case was conducted before a county civil service commission and would likely be judicially noticeable as an act of the state. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).) Because Pomona College has not established that they are a public entity of the state, subdivision (c) is not applicable here.

In Brown v. Crandall (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1, the First District Court of Appeal noted the trial court had taken judicial notice of a hearing officer’s decision, a county resolution, residual coverage standard, and an eligibility manual. (Id., at p. 7.) As in Page, it is unclear under which provision judicial notice was taken, but the hearing proceedings again involved a public entity. (Id., at p. 5-7.) Last, in Morris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 279, the First District Court of Appeal noted the trial court had taken judicial notice of public records and court dockets. (Id., at p. 289-290, fn. 4-5.)

Thus, Pomona College’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

To the extent Abazie also requests the court take judicial notice of a copy of a transcript, Abazie’s request is DENIED since a copy of the transcript was already provided to the court in Abazie’s Petition as Exhibit F.

ANALYSIS

Pomona College demurs to Abazie’s Petition on the grounds that Abazie (1) failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies and (2) failed to plead sufficient facts to state a cause of action. Pomona College’s motion to strike is made on the same grounds.

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.)

Furthermore, upon a party’s motion or the court’s own motion, the court may strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

In this case, Pomona College’s arguments are based on extrinsic evidence in the form of communications between Abazie and Pomona College as well as copies of Pomona College policies. Pomona College argues this evidence contradicts or defeats the allegations in Abazie’s Petition. Because the court denied Pomona College’s request to take judicial notice of these documents, the documents do not provide a proper basis for Pomona College’s demurrer and motion to strike. Instead, the court finds that the issues raised in the demurrer and motion to strike are better addressed in a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.

Accordingly, the court OVERRULES the demurrer and DENIES the motion to strike.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Pomona College’s demurrer to Abazie’s Petition is OVERRULED.

Furthermore, Pomona College’s motion to strike portions of Abazie’s Petition is DENIED.

Pomona College is ordered to file its Answer to Petitioner’s writ in ten (10) days.