Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV02342, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV02342 Hearing Date: February 4, 2025 Dept: 45
Joseph K.
Cofey v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint
Date of Hearing: 02/04/2025 Trial
Date: Not Set
Department: 45 Case
No.: 24STCV02342
Moving Party: Defendant California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation
Responding Party: N/A – Unopposed
BACKGROUND
Factual and Procedural
Background –
On
January 30, 2024, Joseph K. Cofey (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR or Defendant).
The Complaint is handwritten and difficult to decipher, however Plaintiff
appears to be alleging two causes of action against Defendant: (1) general
negligence and (2) false imprisonment for an alleged incident that occurred on
July 12, 2023 while attending a group session at Sharper Future, a company that
provides mental health services to the forensic population. As of the time of
filing the Complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated with CDCR.
The
motion now before the Court is Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. No
opposition has been filed.
Meet and Confer –
The parties are
exempt from the meet and confer requirement under Code Civ. Proc. §430.41(a)
because Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time of the filing of the demurrer.
(See Code Civ. Proc. §430.41(d)(1).)
Tentative Ruling
Defendant’s demurrer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[A] demurrer tests the legal
sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer
can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading
under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially
noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury
Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court
may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or
documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of
ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true,
but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2
Cal.4th 962, 967.)
ANALYSIS
Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s
Complaint on three primary grounds: (1) there is no statutory basis for the
causes of action brought, (2) Plaintiff failed to comply with Gov. Code §915(a)
of the Government Claims Act, and (3) the Complaint is vague and uncertain. The
Court agrees on all three counts, takes each in turn, and sustains the demurrer
without leave to amend.
1.
Statutory
Basis –
Under Gov. Code §815 unless a
statute provides for liability “A public entity is not liable for an injury,
whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a
public employee or any other person.” (Gov. Code §815(a).) “Thus, ‘to state a
cause of action against a public entity, every fact material to the existence
of its statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity.’” (Lopez v.
Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.) Here, the
Complaint fails to point to a statute that imposes liability upon Defendant. Consequently,
without a statutory basis for liability the claims cannot go forward.
2.
Government
Claims Act
The Government Claims Act establishes
certain conditions that must be met prior to the filing of a lawsuit against a
public entity. (California
Restaurant Management Systems v. City of San Diego (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1581, 1591.) Primarily, a claim must
be presented to a local public entity prior to filing suit. (Gov. Code
§915(a).) The purpose of the Government Claims Act is “to provide the public
entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and
to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.” (Hernandez
v. City of Stockton (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1222, 1231; Stockett
v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Join Powers Ins. Authority (2004) 34
Cal.4th 441, 446. Also see GOV §§ 910 and 945.4.) Failure to meet
this requirement of the Government Claims Act bars the claim. (See Del Real
v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761,767 [“The filing
of a claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of any cause of action
against the public entity and is therefore an element that a plaintiff is
required to prove in order to prevail.”].)
Here, Plaintiff makes no showing they complied with section 915(a)
of the Government Claims Act. The failure to file a claim consistent with
section 915(a) is fatal to the Complaint.
3.
Uncertainty
Finally, Defendant demurs to the
Complaint pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§430.10(e) and (f), contending the
Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and
the pleadings are unintelligible. The Court agrees. With regard to negligence,
the Complaint fails to plead facts that show Defendant owed a duty, how
Defendant breached the duty, and how Defendant is a proximate cause of the
damages. With regard to false imprisonment, there are no details that allege Defendant
confined Plaintiff without lawful privilege. Without these facts, the Complaint
cannot withstand demurrer.
Leave to Amend –
Leave to amend must be allowed
where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335,
349 [court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any
reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”]. Because the
Complaint fails to comply with section 915(a) of the Government Claims Act, there is no
reasonable possibility of successful amendment. Therefore, leave to amend is
denied.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED without
leave to amend.