Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCP02369, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP02369    Hearing Date: July 30, 2024    Dept: 82

Niloufar Ghafouri v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Case No. 23STCP02369

Order Dismissing Claims against Priscilla Hernandez and Terance Newman with Prejudice

Order Dismissing Claims against the City of Los Angeles without Prejudice

Order Transferring Case to Department One for Reassignment

            Petitioner Niloufar Ghafouri (“Petitioner”) filed the operative first amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on August 9, 2023.  Petitioner asserted a claim for writ of mandate, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief (the “writs causes of action”) against the City of Los Angeles (the “City”), and Priscilla Hernandez and Terance Newman (the “individual respondents”). 

            On October 23, 2023, the individual respondents filed a cross-complaint against Petitioner.  The individual respondents asserted claims for conversion and civil theft.  The individual respondents requested a jury trial.

            On February 21, 2024, the court (Beckloff, J.) sustained the individual respondents’ demurrer to the writs causes of action.  (See Court’s Order, dated February 21, 2024.)  Judge Beckloff sustained the demurrer without leave to amend to the extent the writs causes of action are based on Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.  (See id. at 6.)  The court granted leave to amend to allow Petitioner to allege a declaratory relief claim based on some civil claim other than section 1085.  (See ibid.)  Petitioner did not file an amended complaint. 

            At the hearing on June 17, 2024, Petitioner’s counsel made an oral request to dismiss the entire petition and all respondents without prejudice, and to transfer the cross-complaint to an individual calendar court.  The court granted the motion but stayed the order because counsel for the individual respondents was not able to attend the hearing.  To afford sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard, the court authorized counsel for the individual respondents to file a motion for reconsideration.

            The individual respondents have done so, requesting that the court dismiss them with prejudice (instead of without prejudice).  The individual respondents are entitled to that remedy.  “[A] dismissal without prejudice is not available if the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, or if the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend but the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time allotted to do so.”  (Metabyte, Inc. v. Technicolor S.A. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 265, 275.)  Petitioner’s counsel has not filed any opposition to this motion.

            Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

            1.         The court orders that all causes of action in the operative petition for writ of mandate against the individual respondents—Priscilla Hernandez and Terance Newman—shall be dismissed with prejudice.

            2.         The court orders that all causes of action in the operative petition for writ of mandate against the City of Los Angeles shall be dismissed without prejudice.

            3.         Because the cross-complaint asserts non-writs causes of action—conversion and civil fraud—and requests a jury trial, the court orders that this case shall be transferred to Department One for reassignment to an independent calendar court. 

            4.         The court’s clerk shall provide notice.