Judge Sandy N. Leal, Case 2022-01256994 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2022-01256994, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Defendant Huntington Beach Police Department’s (“Defendant”) unopposed Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff Dariusz J. Kadziolka’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on the grounds that it is uncertain, and on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Tort Claims Act’s claim presentation requirement.

Demurrer for Uncertainty

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Mali’s of California, Inc. 

(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) “[D]emurrers 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.)

Additionally, a Plaintiff bringing a claim against any public entity must plead that claim with particularity. “[T]o state a cause of action against a public entity, every fact material to the existence of its statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity.” (Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 814, 819.) “In view of the fact that tort causes of action against public entities are now based on statute, the general rule that statutory causes of action must be pleaded with particularity is applicable.” (Susman v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 809.) Where liability is based on statute, “[e]very fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded.” (Ibid.)

“In other words, direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on the general tort provisions of Civil Code section 1714. Otherwise, the general rule of immunity for public entities would be largely eroded by the routine application of general tort principles.” (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1183.) Included within this pleading requirement is an obligation to identify the statutory basis of the claim. (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802.) “Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be created by statute or ‘enactment,’ the statute or ‘enactment’ claimed to establish the duty must at the very least be identified.” (Ibid.)

The Court previously sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC on the grounds of uncertainty. Here, the SAC is substantially similar to the FAC in that it still begins with “Assaulted by Police Officers Twice (Two Times) stolen my animal, beaten and given to me pain by Police Officer Putting to the Hoag Hospital in Newport Beach.” It is entirely unclear from this phrase what causes of action, if any, Plaintiff is attempting to allege.

Overall, the SAC does not meet the requirement that liability against Defendant, a public entity, be plead with particularity. Specifically, the SAC still appears to state that certain police officers and/or the DMV were wrongfully keeping Plaintiff from his truck by making him go through certain procedures to get the truck back. Somewhere along the way, these individuals also failed to provide him medical assistance when he came to require it and allegedly assaulted him, causing him injuries. It is entirely unclear how these alleged wrongdoings demonstrate that Defendant, a municipal entity, is liable to Plaintiff.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the SAC is uncertain because it so incomprehensible that Defendant cannot reasonably respond. Defendant’s demurrer is sustained on the grounds of uncertainty.

Claim Presentation Requirement

Government Code section 945.4 provides:

“Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, 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.) The claim presentation requirement is “is not merely procedural, but is a condition precedent to maintaining a cause of action and, thus, is an element of the plaintiff's cause of action.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1236.) A party suing a public entity must allege compliance with this requirement, or that a recognized exception exists. (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374.) “[A] plaintiff need not allege strict compliance with the statutory claim presentation requirement. Courts have long recognized that ‘[a] claim that fails to substantially comply with section 910 and 910.2, may still be considered a ‘claim as presented’ if it puts the public entity on notice both that the claimant is attempting to file a valid claim and that litigation will result if the matter is not resolved.” (State v. Superior Court (Bodde) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245 (Bodde).).

Here, the SAC also does not affirmatively allege that Plaintiff complied with the Tort Claims Act or that any exception applied. However, the SAC does attach various complaints Plaintiff sent to the City of Huntington Beach. For example, page 7 of the SAC is a complaint from Plaintiff which appears to discuss an incident on 4-30-21, the same date alleged in the body of the SAC. Although unclear, page 7 appears to discuss the same or substantially similar issues as alleged in Plaintiff’s SAC, namely that Plaintiff was required to pay certain fees for his vehicle but that while attempting to do so, police officers allegedly assaulted him.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff complied with the requirements of the Tort Claims Act because it appears that Plaintiff submitted some form of a complaint to the City of Huntington Beach regarding the events alleged in the SAC. Pursuant to Bodde, substantial compliance with the claim presentation requirement is sufficient.

In summary, Defendant, Huntington Beach Police Department’s (Defendant) unopposed Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendant is to give notice.