Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 24NNCV03025, Date: 2024-11-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV03025, Date: 2024-11-04 Tentative Ruling

On July 18, 2024, plaintiff Vilma Kerlin Vargas (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Beatriz Marisol Vargas Olmedo, filed this action against defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligent failure to supervise students and negligent hiring and/or retention. Plaintiff alleges that on or around September 27. 2023, while she was a student at Verdugo Hills High School, she was “viciously attacked and assaulted by another student.” (Compl., ¶¶ 1-16.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently failed to prevent the attack and breached its duty to provide adequate supervision and protect her. (Compl., ¶¶ 29-33.)

On September 30, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to strike Plaintiff’s requests for attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest. Defendant argues that prejudgment interest is not recoverable against a public entity and that there are no statutory grounds for attorney’s fees.

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

As an initial matter, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s argument that the motion should be denied because Defendant failed to adequately meet and confer before filing it. (Opp., pp. 3-4.) Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5(a)(4) provides that “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion to strike.” Therefore, even if Plaintiff’s argument had merit, it would not have any impact on Defendant’s motion.

Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s prayer for prejudgment interest must be stricken because she cannot recover prejudgment interest against a public entity. (Motion, p. 4, citing Civil Code section 3291.)

Plaintiff does not disagree that she is unable to recover prejudgment interest against Defendant but argues that the motion to strike must be denied because she may still recover prejudgment interest from the Doe defendants. Accordingly, the motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for prejudgment interest is GRANTED only as to Defendant.

Last, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s prayer for attorneys’ fees is improper because it is unsupported by any contract, statute, or law.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she may recover attorney’s fees based on Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Under section 10215, a court may award attorneys’ fees on noticed motion to a successful party in “any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any. With respect to actions involving public entities, this section applies to allowances against, but not in favor of, public entities, and no claim shall be required to be filed therefor, unless one or more successful parties and one or more opposing parties are public entities, in which case no claim shall be required to be filed therefor under Part 3 (commencing with Section 900) of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code.”

Here, Plaintiff contends that this lawsuit protects public interests, specifically ensuring that school officials, teachers, and school districts supervise children under their temporary care and custody, and ensure that school grounds are safe.

On reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s case does not involve the public interest because it only concerns a single altercation between students and Plaintiff merely seeks to further her own personal economic interests. Defendant has the better argument. As pleaded, the Complaint concerns a sole incident between Plaintiff and another student and does not include any pleadings showing that a lawsuit will further the interest of the public, rather than just herself.

Accordingly, the motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED. The motion to strike Plaintiff’s claim for prejudgment interest against Defendant is GRANTED.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.