Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV28798, Date: 2024-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28798    Hearing Date: August 19, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 8-19-24 a/f 11-7-24 (5-29-24 M.O.)

Case #23STCV28798

Trial Date: Not Set/Not At Issue

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendant, Austin Collins

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, William S. Hart Union High School District

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint

· 1st Cause of Action: Total Equitable Indemnity

· 2nd Cause of Action: Partial Equitable Indemnity

· 3rd Cause of Action: Declaratory Relief

Motion to Strike Claim for Attorney Fees

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff L.S. began attending West Ranch High School, a campus within the district of Defendant William S. Hart Union High School District, in 2021, as a freshman. L.S. alleges fellow freshman student, T.C., made a number of sexually inappropriate comments and requests both in person and via SMS text messages, grabbed L.S.’s property and rubbed said items in his groin area, sexually assaulted L.S. in the empty high school gymnasium in the spring semester of 2022. L.S. maintains a number of efforts to inform school faculty and administrators of the issue, but no action was taken. L.S. also filed a police report.

On November 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint for 1) Violation of Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)); 2) Gender Violence (Civ. Code § 52.4); 3) Negligence; 4) Negligent Failure to Warn, Train and Educate; 5) Negligence Per Se (Failure to Report Suspected Harassment and Sexual Assault); 6) Negligence Per Se (Breach of Mandatory Duty Under Gov. Code § 815.6); 7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and, 8) Constructive Fraud. Plaintiffs Albert and Mary Scott are the parents of L.S.

On January 26, 2024, William S. Hart Union High School District answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against both T.C. and Austin Collins for Total Equitable Indemnity, Partial Equitable Indemnity, and Declaratory Relief. On February 29, 2024, William S. Hart Union High School District filed a first amended answer to the complaint.

RULING

Demurrer: Overruled.

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

The court takes judicial notice of the filed complaint, but cannot take notice of any facts for the truth of the matter asserted. (Ramsden v. Western Union (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 873, 879.)

Cross-Defendant Austin Collins submits an extensive demurrer to the entire cross-complaint for Total Equitable Indemnity, Partial Equitable Indemnity, and Declaratory Relief on grounds of

insufficient factual support. William S. Hart Union High School District in a one-day late opposition maintains the cross-complaint properly states a claim against the parent of minor, T.C., regardless of any failure to identify and plead the roles of the parties by name. The opposition maintains ignorance of detailed facts, but the operative complaint articulates a claim based on the intentional conduct of T.C. Cross-Defendant in reply concedes to the potential for some liability under Civil Code section 1714.1 and Education Code section 48904 but challenges any claim for total indemnity. Cross-Defendant also asserts a lack of factual support to all individual claims thereby excluding potential liability. On the negligence causes of action, Cross-Defendant asserts the underlying complaint lack support imposing a duty of care on Cross-Defendant.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

“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. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 [“[U]nder our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend.]

The demurrer depends on a finding of a legal inability to state an indemnity claim against Collins. (BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 848, 852.) Collins submits a point by point argument regarding the lack of a legal basis to state each and every articulated claim in the operative complaint against Collins, while William S. Hart Union High School District cites to California Education section 48904.

“Notwithstanding Section 1714.1 of the Civil Code, the parent or guardian of any minor whose willful misconduct results in injury or death to any pupil ... shall be liable for all damages so caused by the minor. The liability of the parent or guardian shall not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), adjusted annually for inflation. The parent or guardian shall be liable also for the amount of any reward not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), adjusted annually for inflation, paid pursuant to Section 53069.5 of the Government Code. ...” (Ed. Code, § 48904, subd. (a)(1).)

The court finds no challenge to the plain language of the statute. Cross-Defendant even concedes to the possibility of damages to a maximum of $10,000 barring further consideration under California Government Code 53069.5. Neither party addresses this section, however. The court declines to consider unmade arguments regarding California Government Code 53069.5.

Even assuming no liability beyond the limit under California Government Code 53069.5, the argument in reply against “total” indemnity relies, at least in part, on an assumption that Plaintiff will recover more than $10,000. Such a consideration is categorically beyond the scope of the demurrer. The court therefore declines to make any such qualitative determination on the amount of potential damages for purposes of ruling on the demurrer.

The court also declines to consider the merits of each and every individual cause of action in operative complaint relative to a determination of a valid indemnity claim. Again, such a determination constitutes consideration beyond the scope of pled claims. The cross-complaint in and of itself constitutes a separate action, thereby precluding consideration of the merits of the operative complaint. (Shepard & Morgan v. Lee & Daniel, Inc. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 256, 260-261; Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43, 51; Pacific Finance Corporation v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1933) 219 Cal. 179, 182.) The subject demurrer addresses the immediate cross-complaint and in no way allows for the conditional consideration of any potential basis of indemnity against moving Cross-Defendant.

While the operative cross-complaint lacks the role of Collins or the alleged statutory basis (e.g. parental basis of liability for the alleged conduct of the student), the court finds sustaining the demurrer offers no benefit given the acknowledgment of the basis for the liability claim in the demurrer itself and ability to conduct discovery, as necessary. The demurrer is overruled.

Motion to Strike: Granted.

Collins alleges the cross-complaint lacks a stated basis for recovery of attorney fees. William S. Hart Union High School District cites back to Education Code section 48904 as alleging the basis of fees, as well as the second cause of action under Civil Code section 52.4 for Gender Violence. Collins again challenges the statutory basis of recovery in the reply.

The argument of William S. Hart Union High School District depends on a characterization of the “damages” recovery allowed under Education Code section 48904 and Civil Code section 1714.1, as including attorney fees. The court finds no basis of support for the argument that any claim of recoverable damages within $10,000 cap (barring potential additional recovery under California Government Code 53069.5) in any way includes attorney fees as part of the recovery. The court declines to address unmade arguments for the parties and grants the motion to strike.

The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED, and the motion to strike GRANTED without prejudice with 30 days leave to amend. If William S. Hart Union High School District elects to forego filing a first amended cross-complaint, Collins is ordered to answer the operative cross-complaint within 10 days of the lapsed amendment deadline.

The demurrer of T.C. currently set for November 4, 2024, remains on calendar barring an amended cross-complaint rendering the demurrer moot.

Cross-Defendant Collins to give notice.