Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV15223, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15223    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 3-17-25

Case #24STCV15223

Trial Date: Not Set

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, County of San Bernadino

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Dietrich Lee

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         1^st Cause of Action: Wrongful (Constructive) Termination in Violation of Public Policy

·         2^nd Cause of Action: Wrongful (Constructive) Termination in Violation of Implied or Express Employment Agreement

·         3^rd Cause of Action: Workplace Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault-Hostile Work Environment

·         4^th Cause of Action: Discrimination Due to Sexual Orientation, Age, Race

·         5^th Cause of Action: Retaliation for Reporting Sexual Assault

·         6^th Cause of Action: Failure to Provide a Work Environment Free from Discrimination, Harassment and/or Retaliation

·         7^th Cause of Action: Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and/or Retaliation

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Wrongful (Constructive) Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Wrongful (Constructive) Termination in Violation of Implied or Express Employment Agreement; Workplace Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault-Hostile Work Environment, Discrimination Due to Sexual Orientation, Age, Race; Retalation for Reporting Sexaul Assault; Failure to Provide a Work Environment Free from Discrimination, Harassment and/or Retaliation; and, Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and/or Retaliation.

Plaintiff filed a 170.6 preemptory challenge on June 21, 2024, thereby leading to reassignment to Department 68. On September 5, 2025, the court entered the parties’ stipulation striking all punitive damage allegations against Defendnant County of San Bernadino. On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Cogent Infotech Corporation without prejudice.

RULING: Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Defendant County of San Bernadino (County) submits a demurrer to the entire complaint for Wrongful (Constructive) Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Wrongful (Constructive) Termination in Violation of Implied or Express Employment Agreement; Workplace Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault-Hostile Work Environment, Discrimination Due to Sexual Orientation, Age, Race; Retaliation for Reporting Sexual Assault; Failure to Provide a Work Environment Free from Discrimination, Harassment and/or Retaliation; and, Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and/or Retaliation on grounds of uncertainty. County specifically challenges the lack of any statutory basis against the public entity, lack of compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act, and individual cause of action factual deficiencies. Plaintiff Dietrich Lee maintains all claims are sufficiently pled and denies any requirement to comply with the Government Tort Claims Act when filing an employment action. Plaintiff also maintains FEHA compliance establishes sufficient compliance. County in reply reiterates the lack of any valid basis of a claim, including emphasis on the failure to allege statutory compliance and Government Tort Claims Act.

On a threshold issue, the court notes ALL conduct and employment by the sole remaining defendant occurred within and for the County of San Bernadino. The complaint itself lacks any basis of filing in Los Angeles County. Regardless, the court finds neither a requirement nor a request by either party for San Bernadino County as the venue for the subject action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 394, subd. (a).)

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 liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing with Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute, including this part, and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person.” (Gov. Code, § 815, subd. (b).) “(a) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative. (b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability. (Gov. Code, § 815.2.) “There shall be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) all claims for money or damages against local public entities except any of the following: ... (i) Claims by the state or by a state department or agency or by another local public entity or by a judicial branch entity.” (Gov. Code, § 905.) “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 court finds both the Government Claims Act applicable and NO exception under the identified section by Plaintiff. “[A] plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement. Otherwise, his complaint is subject to a general demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243.) The court finds no applicable basis of exception under the represented FEHA exemption in either the opposition or plain allegations of the operative complaint. (Williams v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 708, 726).  The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend on this basis.

Because the subject matter constitutes an important threshold matter, the court declines to consider the merits regarding factual particularity in that the statutory requisites are intertwined with the threshold showing of claim presentation. (Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.)

The demurrer is therefore sustained with 30 days leave to amend. Plaintiff may NOT add any new causes of action and may only amend introductory allegations as they relate to the negligence claim. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.) Any additional language may be subject to a motion to strike. Any potential issues regarding late claim filing requirements are to be addressed through a petition and not via renewed opposition in case of a subsequent demurrer.

Defendant San Bernadino County to give notice.