Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 24PSCV01968, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01968, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01968 Hearing Date: October 10, 2024 Dept: G

Defendant Hacienda La Puente Unified School District’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Rocio Gonzalez

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Hacienda La Puente Unified School District’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED IN PART, OVVERRULED IN PART.

The Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the first cause of action and with twenty (20) days leave to amend as to the second cause action.

The Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the third cause of action.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action arising from a high school student’s tragic suicide. During the 2022-2023 school year, Diego Pena Gonzalez attended the Stimson Learning Center (Stimson), a special education center operated by Defendant Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (HLPUSD), erroneously sued as “Hacienda La Puente School District.” During Pena Gonzalez’s time at Stimson, Pena Gonzalez was allegedly bullied and harassed. In March 2023, Pena Gonzalez attempted to commit suicide by jumping in front of a train. After Pena Gonzalez expressed a desire to attend a “normal school,” Pena Gonzalez was transferred to Wilson High School (Wilson) during the summer of 2023. At Wilson High School, Pena Gonzalez was subjected to further bullying and HLPUSD’s staff allegedly failed to provide the support promised in Pena Gonzalez’s Individual Education Program (IEP) and Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). On June 2, 2023, Pena Gonzalez committed suicide by stepping in front of a train.

On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff Rocio Gonzalez, individually and as successor-in-interest of the Estate of Pena Gonzalez, filed a complaint against HLPUSD, Does 1-100, and Martin Pena, as a nominal defendant, alleging the following causes of action: (1) wrongful death; (2) negligent hiring, supervision, retention, and training; and (3) survival.

On September 10, 2024, HLPUSD filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing on August 28, 2024, HLPUSD’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with Gonzalez’s counsel and was unable to reach a resolution. (Gardiner Decl., ¶ 4.)

A hearing on the demurrer is set for October 10, 2024, along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service on November 12, 2024.

ANALYSIS

HLPUSD demurs to Gonzalez’s Complaint on the grounds that they are immune pursuant to Education Code section 44808. For the following reasons, the court SUSTAINS HLPUSD’s demurrer to the first cause of action without leave to amend and to the second cause of action with leave to amend. The court also OVERRULES the demurrer as to the third cause of action.

Legal Standard

Demurrer

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.)

Education Code § 44808

Education Code section 44808 states as follows:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no school district, city or county board of education, county superintendent of schools, or any officer or employee of such district or board shall be responsible or in any way liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil of the public schools at any time when such pupil is not on school property, unless such district, board, or person has undertaken to provide transportation for such pupil to and from the school premises, has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off the premises of such school, has otherwise specifically assumed such responsibility or liability or has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.

In the event of such a specific undertaking, the district, board, or person shall be liable or responsible for the conduct or safety of any pupil only while such pupil is or should be under the immediate and direct supervision of an employee of such district or board.” (Educ. Code, § 44808.)

Discussion

In this case, HLPUSD argues they are immune because there are no facts alleged that establish Gonzalez Pena’s suicide occurred on campus or under the supervision of HLPUSD’s staff. (Demurrer, p. 4:8-5:7.) The court agrees these facts are lacking and finds the case of LeRoy v. Yarboi (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 737 (LeRoy) instructive. In LeRoy, the court held Education Code section 44808 immunized a school district from liability for the off-campus suicide of a student during a summer break as the student was not under the supervision or required to be under the supervision of any school employee. (Id., at p. 744.)

In opposition, Gonzalez attempts to distinguish LeRoy by arguing the present case arises not from Pena Gonzalez’s death but from the bullying and harassment that occurred before Pena Gonzalez’s death. (Opp., p. 7:25-9:7.) As to the first two causes of action asserted by Plaintiff, however, the court finds this argument fails. Death is a required element of the first cause of action for wrongful death. (Lopez v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 675, 685.) Because HLPUSD’s immunity prevents them from being held liable for Pena Gonzalez’s off-campus death, Gonzalez cannot maintain a cause of action for wrongful death as a matter of law. And as to the second cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, retention, and training, all of Gonzalez’s alleged damages arise from Pena Gonzalez’s death, including the loss of Pena Gonzalez’s support and the expense of funeral and burial costs. (Complaint, ¶ 68-71.) Thus, as presently pled, the second cause of action is also barred by Education Code section 44808.

As to the third cause of action for survival, Gonzalez seeks to recover general damages for all injuries caused to Pena Gonzalez before Pena Gonzalez’s death. (Complaint, ¶ 72-78.). While some of the injuries include those arising from the train collision and are likely barred by Education Code section 44808 (Complaint, ¶ 73, 74), other injuries include emotional damages as a result of alleged on-campus bullying and harassment. (Complaint, ¶ 41, 78.) Because these damages arise from conduct occurring on-campus while Pena Gonzalez was under HLPUSD’s supervision, they are not barred by Education Code section 44808. Thus, Gonzalez’s survival cause of action survives HLPUSD’s demurrer.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Hacienda La Puente Unified School District’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED IN PART, OVVERRULED IN PART.

The Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the first cause of action and with twenty (20) days leave to amend as to the second cause action.

The Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the third cause of action.