Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV14645, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 23STCV14645 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: July
18, 2024
CASE NAME: Estate
of Keenan Anderson, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
CASE NO.: 23STCV14645
DEMURRER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Defendants
City of Los Angeles, Joshua H. Coombs, Stephen J. Feldman, and Christopher J.
Walters
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Notice of Non-Opposition filed
by Plaintiffs Estate of Keenan Anderson by and through Gabrielle Hansell as
Administratrix and as Guardian ad Litem to S.K.A.
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. Demurrer
to the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim against Defendant
City of Los Angeles;
2. Demurrer
to the First Cause of Action for failure to state a claim against Defendant
City of Los Angeles;
3. Demurrer
to the Second Cause of Action for failure to state a claim against Defendant
City of Los Angeles;
4. Demurrer
to the Third Cause of Action for failure to state a claim against Defendant
City of Los Angeles;
5. Demurrer
to the Fourth Cause of action for failure to state a claim against Defendant
City of Los Angeles;
6. Demurrer
to the First Amended Complaint as to Defendants Coombs, Feldman, and Walters
for failure to state a claim of negligent investigation.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Demurrer
is SUSTAINED in its entirety without leave to amend.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On June 22, 2023, Plaintiffs Estate of Keenan Anderson, by
and through, Gabrielle Hansell, as Administratrix to the Estate and as Guardian
ad Litem to S.K.A., a minor (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against Defendant
City of Los Angeles (City) with four causes of action for: (1) Civil Rights
Violations, (2) Assault and Battery, (3) False Imprisonment, and (4)
Negligence.
On July 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Application and Order
for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem for S.K.A. which the court GRANTED.
On September 8, 2023, City filed a Demurrer.
On November 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed fictitious name
amendments that identified Rasheed Ford (DOE 2), Joshua Combs (DOE 3), and
Stephen Feldman (DOE 4).
On November 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a fictitious name
amendment that identified Jaime Fuentes (DOE 1).
On January 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a fictitious name
amendment that identified Christopher Walters (DOE 5).
On January 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative First
Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants City, Jaime Fuentes, Rasheen H.
Ford, Joshua H. Coombs, Stephen J. Feldman, and Christopher J. Walters
(collectively Defendants) with the same four causes of action as the original
Complaint.
According to the FAC, decedent Keenan Anderson (Anderson)
died as a result of excessive force (use of a taser) by Defendants Coombs,
Ford, Fuentes, Walters, and Feldman (the Officer Defendants) after a minor
traffic collision. Plaintiffs allege City failed to properly train the Officer
Defendants. Plaintiffs further allege that the Officer Defendants acted based
on implicit bias against Anderson because he was African American.
On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Discovery of
Peace Officer Personnel Records.
On May 23, 2024, Defendants City, Coombs, Feldman, and
Walters (Moving Parties) filed the instant Demurrer to the FAC.
On May 28, 2024, Defendants Fuentes and Ford filed an Answer
to the FAC.
On June 11, 2024, the court reset the hearing on Moving
Parties’ Demurrer to July 18, 2024.
On July 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Opposition
to the instant Demurrer.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Demurrer¿
¿
A demurrer for
sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.¿(Hahn v. Mirda¿(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th
740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally
and in context.¿In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the
face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.¿(Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)¿“A
demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic
matters. …. The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the
complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of
action.”¿(Hahn¿147 Cal.App.4th at
747.)¿¿
Meet and Confer¿
¿
Prior to filing
a demurrer, the demurring party is required to satisfy their meet and confer
obligations pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. (CCP) §430.41 and demonstrate that
they so satisfied their meet and confer obligation by submitting a declaration
pursuant to CCP §430.41(a)(2) & (3). Here, there is no meet and confer
declaration. Therefore, the court cannot determine whether sufficient meet and
confer occurred. Still, failure to meet and
confer is not a sufficient ground to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (CCP §
430.41(a)(4).)¿
ANALYSIS:
Moving Parties contend that Plaintiffs failed to identify
statutory authority authorizing the direct liability claims against Defendant
City, that there is no right to police services, that Gov. Code § 820.2
immunizes public employees for discretionary acts, and that there is no cause
of action against a public entity for negligent training and/or supervision in
California. Plaintiffs submitted a non-opposition to the Demurrer.
Moving Parties’ arguments are well taken and, in light of
Plaintiffs’ non-opposition, the court declines to delve into those arguments.
The court also notes that Plaintiffs did not request leave to amend.
Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS Defendants’ demurrer to
the FAC in its entirety without leave to amend.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court