Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV19498, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19498    Hearing Date: March 28, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

Factual Background

Plaintiff in this case is Cristina Arsene. Plaintiff worked as a teaching assistant in the English Department at Santa Monica College. Santa Monica College is run by Defendant, the Santa Monica Community College District. On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant discriminated against her due to her race, and did not accommodate her disability.

Procedural Background

On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed the original Complaint.

On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC)

On June 27, 2024, Defendant demurred to the FAC.

On November 13, 2024, this Court sustained the demurrer as to six of the eight causes of action. This Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend.

On December 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

On February 7, 2025, Defendant demurred to the SAC.

            Discussion

A.    Meet and Confer

Parties are required to meet and confer before filing a demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a).) The demurring party must file a declaration stating how they met, and that they were unable to reach an agreement. (Id. 3(A).) Here, Defendant provides a Declaration from its lawyer stating that he reached out to Plaintiff. (Rynerson Decl. ¶ 2.)  On January 9, 2025, Defendant’s counsel and Plaintiff had a phone call to discuss the SAC. (Ibid.)  Defendant tried to explain the narrow scope of the previous leave to amend, but the parties were unable to resolve the issues raised by Defendant. (Ibid.)

            The Court finds that Defendant has fulfilled its meet and confer requirement.

B.    Scope of the Second Amended Complaint

Legal Standard

After a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend, a plaintiff may not amend the complaint to add new or different causes of action without first obtaining leave of court to do so. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.) When a trial court sustains a demurrer with leave to amend, “the scope of the grant of leave is ordinarily a limited one. It gives the pleader an opportunity to cure the defects in the particular causes of action to which the demurrer was sustained, but that is all.” (Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.)

Analysis

This Court sustained a demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC with leave to amend. The SAC filed by Plaintiff does not comply with the leave to amend that was granted. In Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC, this Court evaluated eight different causes of action: 1) Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods; 2) Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods; 3) Wage Statement Penalties; 4) Violation of Unfair Competition Law; 5) Private Attorneys General Act; 6) Disability Discrimination In Violation Of The FEHA; 7) Failure To Engage In The Interactive Process In Violation Of The FEHA; and 8) Failure To Accommodate In Violation Of The FEHA. Plaintiff’s SAC should have addressed those eight topics.

Causes of Action Seven and Eight

The initial demurrer to the “Failure To Engage In The Interactive Process In Violation Of The FEHA” and “Failure To Accommodate In Violation Of The FEHA” was overruled, so there was no need for Plaintiff to address amend them. (Order RE: Demurrer to FAC p. 10:26-27.) Although there is no reference to these two causes of action in the SAC, it does not appear the Defendant is asserting that Plaintiff has dropped these two causes of action

First Three Causes of Action

As to the causes of action for Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods, Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods, and Wage Statement Penalties, the Court sustained the initial demurrer but granted leave to amend. The problem with those three causes of action was that they were all based on Labor Code sections that do not apply to public employers like Defendant. It was incumbent upon Plaintiff find legal authority to support the argument that the Labor Codes cited in the FAC apply to Defendant. Plaintiff does not do this. In fact, Plaintiff makes no reference to any of these three causes of action in the SAC.

Fourth Cause of Action

This Court also sustained the initial demurrer to the Violation of Unfair Competition Law cause of action, but granted leave to amend. (Order RE: Demurrer to FAC p. 6:26-27.) The problem with this cause of action was that section 17200 of the Unfair Practices Act only creates a cause of action against individuals, not public entities like Defendant. (California Medical Assn. v. Regents of University of California (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 542, 551.) Plaintiff did not provide any legal authority to dispute this point. Consequently, Plaintiff needed to find legal authority to support the argument that the Unfair Practices Act should apply to Defendant. Plaintiff does not do this. In fact, Plaintiff once again makes no reference to this cause of action in the SAC.

Fifth Cause of Action

Additionally, this Court sustained the initial demurrer to the Private Attorneys General Act cause of action because the Private Attorney Generals Act does not apply to public entities like Defendant. (Labor Code § 2699(b), Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164, 1192.) (Order RE: Demurrer to FAC p. 7:14-15.) Plaintiff previously provided no legal authority to dispute this. Plaintiff needed to identify legal authority to support the cause of action. Again, Plaintiff not only fails to remedy the problem, but she makes no reference to this cause of action in the SAC.

Sixth Cause of Action

Finally, this court sustained the initial demurrer to the Disability Discrimination cause of action, but granted leave to amend. (Order RE: Demurrer to FAC p. 8:22-23.) In this instance, Plaintiff failed to allege specific facts that showed Defendant’s discriminatory motive. This means Plaintiff needed to use the SAC to make specific allegations showing that Defendant wanted to fire her because of her disability. Plaintiff did not do this. In fact, Plaintiff only uses the word “disability” a single time in the SAC, and only as a general descriptor of her protected group status. (SAC p.25:11.) In summary, Plaintiff did not use the SAC to address any of the deficiencies of the FAC.

Exceptions

What Plaintiff did do was create a 188-page laundry list of alternative causes of action, as well as grievances against Defendant and its employees. Plaintiff can only add causes of action to a SAC when either the court grants leave, or the amendment directly responds to the court’s reason for sustaining the earlier demurrer. (Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015.)

This Court has not granted Plaintiff leave to add new causes of action to the complaint. (See generally, Order RE: Demurrer to FAC.) What’s more, none of Plaintiff’s additions directly respond to the Court’s reasoning in the initial demurrer ruling. Instead, the SAC adds previously unpled causes of action like, “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress” plus other requests such as, “Kind Request for Psychiatric Evaluations of Wendi DeMorst, Kathryn Jeffery and Loretta Huizar.” (SAC p. 5:15, 26:1-2.) At no point does Plaintiff cite to any legal authority, list any elements to any causes of action, or attempt to remedy the faults with the FAC.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court declines to engage with any of the issues Plaintiff raises in the Second Amended Complaint, as they are far beyond the scope of the initial leave to amend.

C.    Administrative Exhaustion

Defendants raise multiple other issues with the SAC. First, they highlight the fact that Plaintiff has not established that she went through the proper administrative channels before filing this suit. (Demurrer p. 9:7-9.) “[T]he timely filing of an administrative complaint is a prerequisite to bringing an action for damages under the FEHA and, unless an exception applies, no complaint may be filed ‘after the expiration of [three years] from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice … occurred.’” (Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 860, 879.[citation omitted]) Therefore, the addition of new causes of action is improper.

D.    Claims Presentation

Second, Defendant notes that Plaintiff did not follow the proper procedure for suing a public entity under the Government Claims Act. (Demurrer p. 9:13-15.) “Before suing a public entity, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages to the entity.” (Shirk v. Vista Uni. School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 208 [superseded by statute on other grounds].) No suit for money or damages can be brought against a public entity until a written claim has been presented to the public entity. (Gov. Code § 945.4.) That claim must then be acted upon or rejected by the board. (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiff makes no allegations regarding claim presentation of their new causes of action. (See generally, SAC.) Therefore, these new causes of action are improper.

E.     Sovereign Immunity

Third, Defendant highlights that public entities are generally immunized from civil lawsuits, unless a statute explicitly states otherwise. (Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 289, 304.) Plaintiff lists dozens of new causes of action in the SAC, but they do not cite any authorizing statute. (See generally, SAC.) Therefore, none of these new causes of action can be maintained.

For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the new causes of action in the SAC are improper and they do not comply with the leave to amend previously granted by the Court..

Conclusion

The Court SUSTAINS the demurer to causes of action one through six in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, without leave to amend. The motion to strike is moot based upon the ruling on the demurer.

The Court orders Defendant to Answer the seventh and eighth causes of action from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint within 20 days from this Order.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  March 28, 2025                             

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court