Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: CVRI2101052, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Demurrer to Complaint

Defendants Leslie Moore, Amelia Butts, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside’s Demurer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED.

A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond - i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f); Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) 

Here, the Complaint names Katherine Stride and her minor son, J.S., as Plaintiffs. The Complaint does not specify which individual plaintiff (Stride or her son) is bringing each cause of action, nor does it identify which causes of action apply to each Defendant (RSC, Moore, or Butts).  The Complaint therefore fails to inform each Defendant of the allegations that are being raised against them, and of the persons raising the allegations.

Additional grounds for the demurrer are as follows:

Under the Government Tort Claims Act, a public entity is not liable for injury unless the liability is specifically imposed by statute or the California Constitution.  Cal. Govt. Code § 815(a); Yee v. Superior Court (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 26, 33 [abuse of process claim].)

Defendant Riverside Superior Court (“RSC”) is a public entity for purposes of Section 815.  (Govt. Code §§ 811.2, 900.3, 940.3.)  Plaintiffs have not identified any statute under which RSC can be held liable for wrongful termination, “criminal conspiracy to falsify an official court personnel file,” or forcible banishment to another state to obtain employment.” 

Plaintiffs also check the box on their form Complaint for “intentional tort.”  It would also fail against RSC without a statutory basis. Therefore, the demurrer to the causes of action for wrongful termination, “criminal conspiracy,” “forcible banishment,” and “intentional tort” against Defendants is SUSTAINED with ___ days leave to amend.  However, the Court notes that there is likely no basis for a claim of “criminal conspiracy” or “forcible banishment.”  Therefore, Plaintiffs must properly plead the elements of the claims and/or provide the statutory basis for the claims in any amended pleadings. 

“As a matter of law, only an employer can be liable for the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.” (Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 32, 53.)   The individual Defendants Moore and Butt are not alleged to be an employer of Plaintiffs, but Plaintiff Stride’s supervisors.  Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot state a claim against the individual Defendants for wrongful termination, and the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to Defendants Moore and Butt. 

“A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. In order for the bar ... to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows that the action may be barred.”  (Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42 (cleaned up).)  If the dates establishing the running of the statute of limitations do not clearly appear in the complaint, there is no ground for general demurrer.

Plaintiffs’ libel cause of action appears to be premised upon statements included in RSC’s letter releasing Stride from her probationary employment. (See Exh. 1, RSC_000011, lines 10- 22.)  The letter signed by Defendant Butt terminating Plaintiff’s employment is dated July 18, 2019.  This lawsuit was filed on February 23, 2021.  Thus, Plaintiffs’ libel claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and the demurrer to the libel claim is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.