Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21VECV01283, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21VECV01283 Hearing Date: December 9, 2022 Dept: W
HOWARD EMIL
PABST v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, et al.
Defendants California
Department of Motor Vehicles and Steven Gordon demurrer
Date of Hearing: December
9, 2022 Trial
Date: None
set.
Department: W Case
No.: 21VECV01283
Moving Party: Defendants
California Department of Motor Vehicles and Steven Gordon
Responding Party: No
opposition
Meet and Confer: Yes.
(Vallecillo Decl. ¶¶4-6.)
BACKGROUND
On September 24, 2021, Plaintiff Howard
Emil Pabst filed a complaint against Defendants Department of Motor Vehicles
and Steven Gordon asserting causes of action for (1) California Vehicle Code
section 13365; (2) Violation of California Constitution, Article I, §§7-15 –
Due Protection; (3) Violation of the United States Constitution Amendment 14 –
Due Process; (4) Violation of California Constitution, Article 1, §7 – Equal
Protection; (5) Violation of the United States Constitution Amendment 14 – Equal
Protection.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated
his civil rights and violated the Vehicle Code by suspending his driver’s
license for failure to pay traffic tickets.
[Tentative] Ruling
Defendants California Department of
Motor Vehicles and Steven Gordon’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
DISCUSSION
Defendants California Department of
Motor Vehicles and Steven Gordon demur to the complaint on the grounds each
cause of action is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible and fails to state
the specific factual basis.
Uncertainty
Defendants first demur to the complaint
on the grounds the complaint is not drawn in conformity with the Rules of Court
and commingles multiple and separate causes of action into one. Defendants also
argue the complaint is uncertain on the grounds the complaint refers to
Petitioners other than Pabst, specifically, individuals named Guillermo
Hernandez, Elisabeth Baca Cazares, and Emmanuel Johnson.
A demurrer based on uncertainty only
applies where the complaint is so bad that a defendant cannot reasonably
respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or
denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury
v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Though
California courts take a liberal view toward in artfully drawn pleadings, it
remains essential a complaint set forth the actionable facts with sufficient
precision to inform the defendant of what the plaintiff is complaining about
and what remedies are being sought. (Signal Hill Aviation Co. v. Stroppe
(1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 627, 636.)
Here, Plaintiff's complaint is not so
uncertain that Defendants cannot reasonably respond thereto. Accordingly, the
court overrules Defendants’ demurrer for uncertainty.
Administrative Remedies
Defendants demur to the complaint on
the grounds Plaintiff fails to allege he filed a Government Tort Claim.
Under the Government Claims Act, the
general rule is that any party with a claim for money or damages against a
public entity must first file claim directly with that entity; only if that
claim is denied or rejected may the claimant file a lawsuit. (Gov. Code §§ 905,
945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.)
This provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and
make a determination as to whether it will pay on the claim. (Roberts
v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.) Failure to timely
file a tort claim renders the complaint subject to demurrer.¿(V.C. v. Los
Angeles Unified School Dist.¿(2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 499, 509, affirming
trial court decision to sustain demurrer without leave to amend because V.C.’s
failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Government Claims Act
barred her action.) A complaint subject to the Tort Claims Act must allege
facts showing compliance with the act or allege facts excusing non-compliance.
(State v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234,
1239.) Government Code
section 950.2 extends the claims presentation requirement to bar causes
of action asserted against current or former public employees for injuries
resulting from acts or
omissions committed in the scope of their employment as public employees. (Gov. Code §950.2.)
Here, Plaintiff alleged no facts
regarding whether he complied with the Government Tort Claims Act before filing
this suit. Plaintiff does not state whether he filed claims with the state for
the DMV and Gordon’s alleged violations in the complaint, and he did not state
facts showing excuse from filing a claim. As such, the court finds that both
causes of action do not allege sufficient facts to support a claim. Moreover,
it appears that it is too late to file a claim or seek relief to file a late
claim. A plaintiff has six months to file a government claim within the accrual
of the cause of action and failure to present a claim to the Government Claims
Board within the time period bars a civil lawsuit against the public entity or
employee. (Gov. Code §§ 911.2, 945.4; Bodde, supra, Cal.4th
1234, 1239.) Plaintiff alleges around 2011 through 2021, Plaintiff was pulled
over by a police officer and was told that his driver’s license had been
suspended and confiscated his license. (Compl. ¶21.) Unless Plaintiff can
allege he filed a claim within six months of 2021, any application would be too
late. A plaintiff’s request to present a late claim must be filed “within a
reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action
and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim.” (Gov. Code,
§911.4(b).)
Moreover, as to the first cause of
action, section 818.2 provides that “[a] public entity is not liable for an injury
caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce
any law.” (Govt. Code, § 818.2.) Section 821 provides the same, but in regards to public employees. (See id., § 821.)
Accordingly, Defendants DMV and Gordon’s
demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.