This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/14/2020 at 05:12:39 (UTC).

B SOSANYA VS MIHAIL BADICA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 08/20/2019 B SOSANYA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MIHAIL BADICA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7731

  • Filing Date:

    08/20/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SOSANYA B

Defendants

BRAVO DANIEL

TAMAYO GRACE

BODNAR BENITA

LEMUS EDITH

GARCIA WANDA PACIS

BADICA MIHAIL

COLLEGE OF NURSING AND TECHNOLOGY INC.

TAMAYO SHARON GRACE

MARTINEZ BEATRIZ

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KELLY NATHANIEL

Defendant Attorneys

BADAWIYA RIMA M.

KARIM IMRAAN

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

12/6/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

12/3/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

Notice of Limited Scope Representation - Notice of Limited Scope Representation

11/18/2019: Notice of Limited Scope Representation - Notice of Limited Scope Representation

Reply (name extension) - Reply To Opposition

11/22/2019: Reply (name extension) - Reply To Opposition

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer; Declaration

11/18/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendants' Demurrer; Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

10/17/2019: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

10/17/2019: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

10/17/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Complaint - (Amended)

8/20/2019: Complaint - (Amended)

Reply (name extension) - Reply Mihail Badica; College of Nursing and Technology Inc., Benita Bodnar, Wanda Pacis Garcia, Daniel Bravo and Edith Lemuss Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Our Demurrer

2/26/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply Mihail Badica; College of Nursing and Technology Inc., Benita Bodnar, Wanda Pacis Garcia, Daniel Bravo and Edith Lemuss Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Our Demurrer

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

3/4/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

1/22/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/25/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/18/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

10/3/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

10/3/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

10/3/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

8/20/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/23/2022
  • Hearing08/23/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • Hearing02/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • Hearing08/31/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2020
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Nathaniel Kelly (Attorney); B Sosanya (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 08/31/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 03/04/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 08/31/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2020
  • DocketReply Mihail Badica; College of Nursing and Technology Inc., Benita Bodnar, Wanda Pacis Garcia, Daniel Bravo and Edith Lemus?s Reply to Plaintiffs? Opposition to Our Demurrer to Their Second Amended Complaint; Filed by: Mihail Badica (Defendant); College of Nursing and Technology Inc. (Defendant); Benita Bodnar (Defendant); Wanda Pacis Garcia (Defendant); Daniel Bravo (Defendant); Edith Lemus (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2020
  • DocketReply Mihail Badica; College of Nursing and Technology Inc., Benita Bodnar, Wanda Pacis Garcia, Daniel Bravo and Edith Lemus?s Reply to Plaintiff?s Opposition to Our Motion to Strike Portions of Her Second Amended Complaint; Filed by: Mihail Badica (Defendant); College of Nursing and Technology Inc. (Defendant); Benita Bodnar (Defendant); Wanda Pacis Garcia (Defendant); Daniel Bravo (Defendant); Edith Lemus (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketOpposition to Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint; Filed by: B Sosanya (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
37 More Docket Entries
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: B Sosanya (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: B Sosanya (Plaintiff); As to: MIhail Badica (Defendant); College of Nursing and Technology Inc. (Defendant); Benita Bodnar (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/23/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Amended Complaint (1st): Status Date changed from 09/16/2019 to 08/20/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Amended Complaint (1st): Status Date changed from 09/16/2019 to 08/20/2019

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC07731    Hearing Date: March 04, 2020    Dept: 25

DEMURRER WITH MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP §§ 430.10, et seq.; 435 )

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Demurrer and Motion to Strike is CONTINUED TO MAY 18,2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendants must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Demurrer and Motion to Strike being placed off calendar or denied.

OPPOSITION: Filed on February 20, 2020

REPLY: Filed on February 26, 2020

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff B. Sosanya (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Vocational Nursing Practice Act, violation of California Board of Nursing, breach of written contract, negligent misrepresentation, discrimination, and defamation against Defendants Mihail Badica, College of Nursing and Technology, Inc., Benita Bodnar, Grace Tamayo, Wanda Pacis Garcia, Daniel Bravo, and Edith Lemus (collectively, “Defendants”). On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, which added Beatriz Martinez as a Defendant.

On January 22, 2020, Defendants College of Nursing and Technology, Inc., Mihail Badica, Benita Bodnar, Wanda Pacis Garcia, Daniel Bravo, and Edith Lemus filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Unverified Second Amended Complaint (the “Demurrer”) and Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Unverified Complaint (the “Motion to Strike”). On February 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition, and on February 26, 2020, Defendants filed a reply.

  1. Legal Standard

  1. Demurrer

 

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

 

B. Motion to Strike

 

California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 435; 436, subd. (a).) Motions may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings which are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules or orders. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (b).) Motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 92, subd. (d).)

In particular, a motion to strike can be used to attack the entire pleading or any part thereof – in other words, a motion may target single words or phrases, unlike demurrers. (Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 40.) California’s policy of liberal construction applies to motions to strike. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; see also Duffy v. Campbell (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 662, 666 [noting that courts must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the pleading when considering a motion to strike].) The Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matters, empowering the Court to enter orders striking matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 requires that “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a).)

  1. Discussion

  1. Meet and Confer Requirements

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendants’ meet and confer efforts are insufficient. On January 15, 2020, Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer email to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Demurrer, Karim Decl., ¶ 4; Mot., Karim Decl., ¶ 4.) However, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), and section 435.5, subdivision (a), require that parties meet and confer in person or by telephone. Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff in person or by telephone and file a supplemental declaration attesting to such efforts at least 16 court days before the new hearing date.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Demurrer and Motion to Strike are CONTINUED to MAY 18, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendants must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Demurrer and Motion to Strike being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC07731    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: 94

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10)

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

(Code Civ. Proc., § 436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants College of Nursing and Technology, Inc.; Mihail Badica; Benita Bodnar; Wanda Pacis Garcia; Daniel Bravo; and Edith Lemus’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED and Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff has 20 days’ leave to amend her third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action. The Demuerrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s first, second, and ninth causes of action.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for (1) violations of the Vocational Nursing Practice Act and California Board of Nursing, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Fraud, (4) Discrimination, (5) Defamation, (6) Civil Conspiracy, and (7) Bribery arising from Plaintiff (a nursing student)’s complaints about her peer’s cheating, the response of the College Administration faculty and staff, and an otherwise unsatisfactory nursing school program. Plaintiff claims that Defendants responded unsatisfactorily and made racially-charged, disparaging comments about her to other students. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants did not provide her with the nursing school facilities and curriculum required by the Vocational Nursing Practice Act and the Code of Regulations, Title 15, Article 3, Section 1427(c).

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Sustain demurrer to each cause of action and strike Plaintiff’s prayers for punitive damages and attorney’s fees and related allegations. Enter judgment in favor of moving Defendants.

OPPOSITION: Filed on November 18, 2019

REPLY: None filed as of November 25, 2019 

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff S. Sosanya (“Plaintiff”) brought this action for (1) violation of the Vocational Nursing Practice Act, (2) violation of California Board of Nursing; (3) breach of written contract; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) discrimination; and (6) defamation against Defendants College of Nursing and Technology Inc., Mihail Badica, Benita Bodnar, Grace Tamayo, Wanda Pacis Garcia, Daniel Bravo, and Edith Lemus.

On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting causes of action for (1) violation of the Vocational Nursing Practice Act; (2) violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Article 3, Section 1427(c); (3) breach of written contract; (4) negligent misrepresentation/fraud; (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (6) discrimination in violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Code sections 51 through 52; (7) defamation per se, at common law and pursuant to Civil Code section 46; (8) civil conspiracy; and (9) bribery against Mihail Badica (“Badica”); College of Nursing and Technology Inc. (“College”); Benita Bodnar (“Bodnar”); Wanda Pacis Garcia (“Garcia”); Daniel Bravo (“Bravo”); Edith Lemus (“Lemus”); Sharon Grace Tamayo (“Tamayo”); and Beatriz Martinez (“Martinez”).

In response, Defendants College, Badica, Bodnar, Garcia, Bravo; and Lemus (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Demurrer to and a Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint on October 17, 2019. Plaintiff filed her Opposition Papers on November 18, 2019. The Court is not in receipt of a reply.

II. Legal Standard

Meet and Confer

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).) A similar meet and confer process and declaration is required for motions to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).)

Demurrer and Motion to Strike

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.) The legal standard for a demurrer and a motion to strike is the same. “A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725 (Ivanoff).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) The court looks to whether “the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Ivanoff, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th p. 725.) “Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. If the complaint fails to plead, or if the defendant negates, any essential element of a particular cause of action, this court should affirm the sustaining of a demurrer.” (Rakestraw v. California Physicians’ Serv. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) The court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of which judicial notice has been taken.” (Id.) “The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

Leave to Amend

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

III. Analysis

Meet and Confer

Defendants submit the declaration of attorney Imraan Karim (“Karim”) in support of their demurrer and motion to strike. Karim declares that on October 10, 2019, his office sent meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiff by regular mail and electronic mail. (Karim Decl., ¶ 4.) The letter laid out Defendants position and requested that Plaintiff contact his office by telephone. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) Defendants were unable to reach Plaintiff because she has not listed her telephone number on her pleadings or anywhere else. (Id. at ¶ 6.) At the time Karim submitted his declaration, Plaintiff had not responded to Defendants’ meet and confer correspondence. (Ibid.) Plaintiff does not complain about the insufficiency of the meet and confer. Accordingly, the Court now turns to the merits of the moving papers.

Special Demurrer for Uncertainty

Defendants specially demur to the First Amended Complaint for uncertainty. (Demurrer pp. 3, 15-18, 20, 22-24.) But special demurrers for uncertainty are not permitted in a limited jurisdiction court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) Accordingly, the Court cannot consider the special demurrer, and it is OVERRULED.

Special Demurrer Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10, Subdivision (g)

Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to plead a breach of contract under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (g). (Demurrer p. 15.) Defendants’ contentions that Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contact is uncertain because it cannot be ascertained whether the contract is oral or written and any oral agreement is barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 1856. As stated in Section B above, special demurrers are not permitted in limited jurisdiction court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) The Court cannot consider Defendants’ special demurrer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (g). Accordingly, it is OVERRULED.

General Demurrer to All Nine Causes of Action

Plaintiff alleges that she was a student at the College of Nursing & Technology (“College”) in a 15-month Licensed Vocational Nursing (“LVN”) program. (FAC ¶ 1.) Plaintiff complained to defendant Badica, the owner of the school, about witnessing her classmates cheating. According to Plaintiff, Badica responded “let them continue to cheat.” (FAC 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “collectively conspired against Plaintiff, and demonstrated bias and discrimination [against Plaintiff by making] negative and racially influenced statements and actions” to Plaintiff and others, resulting in “defamation and unfair treatment.” (Ibid.) As a result, Plaintiff brought this action. In her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action against Defendants, Sharon Grace Tamayo, and Beatriz Martinez: (1) violation of the Vocational Nursing Practice Act; (2) violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Article 3, Section 1427(c); (3) breach of written contract; (4) negligent misrepresentation/fraud; (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (6) discrimination in violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Code sections 51 through 52; (7) defamation per se, at common law and pursuant to Civil Code section 46; (8) civil conspiracy; and (9) bribery.

Plaintiff generally opposes Defendants’ demurrer on the grounds that a demurrer can only be used to challenge defects on the face of the complaint. Plaintiff does not offer any opposing argument in support of the sufficiency of her pleadings as to any specific cause of action. Rather, Plaintiff argues that, if Defendants’ demurrer is sustained, Plaintiff should be allowed to amend her FAC. Moreover, Plaintiff claims that if she failed to meet the standards of pleading, it is largely due to the fact that she has been representing herself until this point in the litigation. Plaintiff has now retained counsel competent to represent her. Moreover, Plaintiff’s declaration demonstrates that she can amend her FAC to allege that Defendants discriminated against her and forced her to drop out of her nursing program at the College of Nursing and Technology.

Violation of Vocational Nursing Practice Act, Article 4, Sections 2881,

2882 and Article 5, Sections 2530, 2532, 2533, et seq. (1st Cause of Action)

Statutory Authority

The Vocational Nursing Practice Act is a body of administrative law and regulations intended to regulate the profession of Vocational Nursing. The Vocational Nursing Practice Act draws from two statutory sources: Division 2, Chapter 6.5 of the Business and Professions Code, and Division 25, Chapter 1 of the Code of Regulations.

2881. Requirements for Approval.

the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians of the State of

California, gives a course of instruction in vocational nursing of not less than

1,530 hours or 50 semester units approved by the board pursuant to Section 2882

whether the same be established by the State Board of Education, other educational

institutions, or other public or private agencies or institutions and is affiliated or

conducted in connection with one or more hospitals.

for calculating semester units as specified in this section shall consist of not less

than 50 minutes of actual class time.

2882. Required Instruction.

The course of instruction of an approved school of vocational nursing shall consist

of not less than the required number of hours of instruction in such subjects as the

board may from time to time by regulation determine, together with the required

number of hours in the care of medical, surgical, obstetrical patients, sick children,

and such other clinical experience as from time to time may be determined by the

board.

The board shall, by regulation, provide for the approval of courses of instruction expressed in hours of instruction, or academic units, or which require satisfactory demonstration of skills and behavioral competencies.

The Vocational Nursing Practice Act, Article 5, Sections 2530, 2532, and 2533 provide:

2530. General Requirements.

(a) The program shall have sufficient resources, faculty, clinical facilities, library,

staff and support services, physical space, skills laboratory and equipment to achieve

the program’s objectives.

(b) Regular faculty meetings shall be held. Minutes shall be available to the

Board’s representative.

(c) Clinical faculty shall have no other responsibilities during the hours assigned

to the instruction of students.

(d) Each teacher assistant shall work under the direction of an approved instructor.

No more than one teacher assistant may be assigned to each instructor. Each teacher assistant shall assist the instructor in skills lab and clinical teaching only. The instructor to whom the teacher assistant is assigned shall be available to provide direction to

the teacher assistant as needed.

(e) Each instructor shall have a daily lesson plan which correlates the theory and

practice offered to the student. A copy of this plan shall be available to the director.

(f) The program’s instructional plan shall be available to all faculty.

(g) Each school shall have on file proof that each enrolled student has completed a general education course of study through the 12th grade or evidence of completion

of the equivalent thereof. Equivalency is determined by the Department of Education

in any of the United States or by a nationally-recognized regional accrediting body.

(h) Each school shall have an attendance policy approved by the Board. The policy shall include but not be limited to, criteria for attendance and the specific course objectives for which make-up time is required. Acceptable methods for make-up include:

  1. Theory: case studies, independent study, written examination, attendance at

seminars or workshops, auto-tutorial laboratory, and research reports.

  1. Clinical: performance evaluation in skills laboratory or additional time in the

clinical area with clients/patients.

(i) The school shall evaluate student performance to determine the need for remediation or removal from the program.

(j) Each school shall advise students, in writing, of the following:

(1) Right to contact the Board of program concerns.

(2) Credit for previous education and experience.

(3) School's grievance policy.

(4) List of Board approved clinical facilities.

(k) The program shall have prior Board approval to increase the number of students per class and/or increase the frequency of admission of classes. Criteria to evaluate a school's request to increase the number of students per class and/or increase the frequency of class admissions include but are not limited to:

(1) Sufficient program resources as specified in Section 2530(a).

(2) Adequacy of clinical experience as specified in Section 2534.

(3) Licensure examination pass rates as specified in Section 2530(l).

(l) The program shall maintain a yearly average minimum pass rate on the licensure examination that does not fall below 10 percentage points of the state average pass rate for first time candidates of approved vocational nursing schools for the same period.

(1) Failure to maintain the required yearly average minimum pass rate for two years or eight consecutive quarters may be cause to place a program on provisional approval.

2532. Curriculum Hours.

(a) The course in vocational nursing shall consist of not less than 1530 hours or 50 semester units, and may be given on either a full-time or part-time basis. One hour of instruction for purposes of computing the total hours of instruction or for calculating semester units as specified in this section shall consist of not less than 50 minutes of actual class time.

(b) The minimum hours required shall be as follows: Theory Hours -576, which shall include a minimum of 54 hours in pharmacology Clinical Hours -954

(c) The school week shall not exceed 40 hours per week.

(d) School days that consist of class attendance only or a combination of class attendance and clinical experience shall not exceed eight hours in length.

(e) Students may be assigned to shifts of up to and including 12-hour length for clinical experience, only.

(f) Students may be granted holidays and vacation days equivalent to those granted by community colleges.

2533. Curriculum Content.

(a) Vocational nurse programs shall include theory and correlated clinical experience.

(b) The curriculum shall develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to care for

patients of all ages in current health care settings.

(c) Curriculum content shall be taught in a sequence that results in students’ progressive mastery of knowledge, skills, and abilities.

(d) The curriculum content shall include: (1) Anatomy and physiology; (2) Nutrition; (3)

Psychology; (4) Normal growth and development; (5) Nursing fundamentals; (6) Nursing process; (7) Communication, both verbal and written, including communication with patients who have psychological disorders; (8) Patient education; (9) Pharmacology which shall include: (A) Knowledge of commonly used drugs and their action, (B) Computation of dosages, (C) Preparation of medications, (D) Principles of administration; (10) Medical-surgical nursing; (11) Communicable diseases, which shall include but not be limited to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV); (12) Gerontological nursing; (13) Rehabilitation nursing; (14) Maternity nursing; (15) Pediatric nursing; (16) Leadership; (17) Supervision; (18) Ethics and unethical conduct; (19) Critical thinking; (20) Culturally congruent care; (21) End-of-life care.

(e) The following related courses may be taught by additional faculty. Additional faculty are persons who have qualifications to teach in a community college or a state university in California or hold a baccalaureate degree in the field related to the curriculum content taught, or meet the requirement for a vocational credential.

(f) All curricular changes that significantly alter the program philosophy, conceptual

framework, content, objectives, or other written documentation as required in Section

2526, shall be approved by the Board prior to implementation. Proposed curricular

changes must be submitted to the Board in final form by the fifteenth day of the second

month preceding the month of the Board meeting at which the changes will be

considered. Revisions should include: (1) Explanation of changes; (2) Rationale for

proposed revision; (3) Description of revised curriculum materials; and

(4) Changes to behavioral objectives, if applicable.

None of the above quoted statutory language provides for a private right of action to enforce these nursing educational institution requirements. The Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians (the “Board”) has the exclusive authority to enforce these regulations under the Business and Professions Code, Division 2, Chapter 6.5, Article 3. Specifically, the Board has authority to revoke, suspend, or place on probation any license if the licensee has violated a provision of the law governing the profession. 

Business and Professions Code section 2883 specifically provides the following requirements for Vocational Nursing Schools:

It shall be the duty of the [B]oard, through an official representative, to inspect or

review all schools of vocational nursing in this state at such times as the board shall deem

necessary ... if the board determines that any approved school of vocational nursing is

not maintaining the standard required by the [B]oard, notice thereof in writing specifying

the defect or defects shall be immediately given to the school. If the defects are not

corrected within a reasonable time, the school of nursing may be removed from the

approved list and notice thereof in writing given to it.

The Code specifically states that it is the duty of the Board to enforce these regulations, not private actors. An individual does not have standing to enforce such statutory provisions as discussed in more detail below.

Enforcement by a Real Party in Interest

“Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as

otherwise provided by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., §367.) Actions must be brought

in the name of the real party in interest to save the defendant from a multiplicity of suits, further

annoyance and vexation, and to fix and determine the real liability, if any. (Kadota Fig Ass’n of

Producers v. Case-Swayne Co. (l946) 73 Cal.App.2d 796, 801.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 367, every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, the real party in interest is the person possessing the right sued upon by reason of the substantive law. “Where the complaint states a cause of action in someone, but not the plaintiff, a demurrer will be sustained.” (Ventura County Ry. Co. v. Hadley Auto Transport (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 878, 879.

Plaintiff does not demonstrate or argue that she is a member of the Board tasked with the enforcement of the Vocational Nursing Practice Act. The Court finds that Plaintiff is not a real party in interest and therefore lacks standing to bring causes of action to enforce sections of the Vocational Nursing Practice Act. Rather, the Act provides that the Board may bring enforcement actions under the Vocational Nursing Practice Act.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for violation of Vocational Nursing Practice Act, Article 4, Sections 2881, 2882 and Article 5, Sections 2530, 2532, 2533, et seq. is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

2. Violation of California Board of Nursing (California Code of Regulations,

Title 16, Article 3, Section 1427(c)) (2nd Cause of Action)

Statutory Authority

California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Article 3, Section 1427(c) states:

Each such program shall maintain written agreements with such facilities and such

Agreements shall include the following:

  1. Assurance of the availability and appropriateness of the learning environment in relation to the program’s written objectives;

  2. Provision for orientation of faculty and students;

  3. A specification of the responsibilities and authority of the facility's staff as related to the program and to the educational experience of the students

  4. Assurance that staff is adequate in number and quality to ensure safe and continuous health care services to patients;

  5. Provisions for continuing communication between the facility and the program; and

  6. A description of the responsibilities of faculty assigned to the facility utilized by the program.

For the same reasons stated above in section 1 on pages 8 through 9, the California Code of Regulations does not provide a private right of action for individuals to bring claims to enforce it. Plaintiff does not argue or allege that she is a member of the Board tasked with enforcing this regulation.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for violation of California Board of Nursing (California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Article 3, Section 1427(c)) is sustained without leave to amend.

3. Breach of Written Contract (3rd Cause of Action)

Elements and Requirements for Pleading a Contract

“To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must plead and prove (1) the existence of the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. [Citation.]” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.) Further, the complaint must indicate on its face whether the contract is written, oral, or implied by conduct. (Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 458.) “If the action is based on an alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written instrument must be attached and incorporated by reference.” (Ibid.) Although a written contract is usually pled by alleging its making and attaching a copy which is incorporated by reference, a written contract can also be pleaded by alleging the making and the substance of the relevant terms. (Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198–199.)

Pleading Standard for Breach of Contract – Specificity

General allegations stating that defendants violated a contract are insufficient, and instead, pleaders must state facts showing a breach. (Levy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1, 5–6 (State Farm).) “[A] pleader must state with certainty the facts constituting a breach of contract.” (Melican v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 174; Levy v. State Farm, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 5 [“Facts alleging a breach, like all essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action, must be pleaded with specificity”].)

Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract. (Demurrer p. 15.)

Plaintiff alleges that on June 13, 2018, she entered into a contract with Defendants for the provision of a nursing education in exchange for tuition payments. (FAC ¶ 25.) Plaintiff further alleges that Badica and College breached this contract by failing to provide an ongoing and successful program designed to provide an individual access to the job market as an entry-level practitioner. (FAC ¶ 28.) Moreover, College’s catalog, handed to Plaintiff at orientation, stated “the [C]ollege does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of sex, age, race, national origin, religion or disability that would not preclude employment within the chosen field.” (FAC ¶ 29.) Plaintiff does not allege facts that identify the terms or legal effect of the contract between herself and the College and Badica. Plaintiff also does specify what terms of the contract, if any, were breached and what conduct specifically resulted in the alleged breach.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the legal effect of the contract and a specific breach of that contract. Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer to the third cause of action for breach of contract is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

4. Negligent Misrepresentation/Fraud (4th Cause of Action)

Elements and Pleading Standard for Fraud Causes of Action

“The elements of fraud are ‘ “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” ’ [Citations.] The elements of negligent misrepresentation are similar to intentional fraud except for the requirement of scienter; in a claim for negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff need not allege the defendant made an intentionally false statement, but simply one as to which he or she lacked any reasonable ground for believing the statement to be true.” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184–185.) “Fraud allegations ‘involve a serious attack on character’ and therefore are pleaded with specificity. [Citation.] General and conclusory allegations are insufficient. [Citation.] The particularity requirement demands that a plaintiff plead facts which “show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1469 (Cansino).)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Badica entered bankruptcy in 2011 to avoid lawsuits from former nursing students. (FAC ¶ 34.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants intentionally misrepresented and falsely advertised the quality of the education that they offered to their students. (FAC ¶ 35.) Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and lack specificity: they merely parrot the elements of a fraud stated in the paragraph above. A fraud claim requires Plaintiff to specify “how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Cansino, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 1469.) Here, Plaintiff does not allege by what means the College is liable to her for fraud and in what manner Badica or College made negligent misrepresentations to Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff states that she received a catalog at orientation, quoted above in Section 3 on page 11, she does not provide any link between Badica and the statements made in the catalog aside from his ownership of the College. Moreover, her claim that Badica lacked any reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true is conclusory because it merely states that Badica was in a “superior position to know the truth about [his] representations and omissions about [the] services based on [his] knowledge of them, especially with regards to the benefits and risks associated with those services.” (FAC ¶ 35.) Such conclusory statements are insufficient to support a cause of action for fraud.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to specifically allege “how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered” by Defendants Badica and College. (Cansino, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 1469.) For this reason, the Demurrer to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

5. Unfair Business Practices (5th Cause of Action)

Elements and Pleading Standard for Violations of the Unfair Competition Law

“ ‘[A]n action based on Business and Professions Code section 17200 to redress an unlawful business practice ‘borrows’ violations of other laws and treats these violations, when committed pursuant to business activity, as unlawful practices independently actionable under [Business and Professions Code] section 17200 et seq. and subject to the distinct remedies provided thereunder.’ ” (Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 516, 536.)

To plead a violation of the unfair competition law (“UCL”), a plaintiff must allege (1) a business practice, (2) that is unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent, and (3) authorized remedy. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200; Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 659, 676.) An “unlawful” practice requires violation of another statute, and a business practice may be “unfair” even if not otherwise proscribed by statute as long as the practice is not expressly authorized by law. (People ex rel. Dept. of Motor Vehicles v. Cars 4 Causes (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.) If there is no violation of another law, defendant cannot be held liable for an “unlawful” business practice. (Graham v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 610 [demurrer to SAC which failed to allege violation of a law was properly sustained without leave to amend].) Alleging a “violation of another law is a predicate for stating a cause of action under the UCL’s unlawful prong.” (Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1554.) The “unlawful” version must be specifically pled. (See Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 [demurrer properly sustained because operative pleading identified no particular section of the statutory scheme that was violated and failed to allege reasonably particular facts].)

Here, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Vocational Nursing Practice Act and California Board of Registered Nursing, California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Article 3, Section 1427(c). Plaintiff states that Defendants Badica and College disseminated “deceptive and misleading advertising and marketing materials.” (FAC ¶ 41.) She also alleges that “Defendants practice unfair competition in California by offering the cheapest program tuition and cost in order to eliminate competition in the market industry and attract more students” (FAC ¶ 43.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants “unlawful, fraudulent or unfair business acts and practices continue to the present, and they present a threat to Plaintiff, in that the Defendants have refused to correct their wrongdoing.” (FAC ¶ 44.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ committed unlawful business practices by providing misleading marketing. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants’ wrongful conduct is their violations of the Vocational Nursing Practice Act or Code of Regulations, Title 16, Article 3, Section 1427(c). Moreover, Plaintiff does not plead reasonably particular facts demonstrating how Defendants violated these statutes or any other law. As such, Plaintiff fails to meet the pleading standard to support her UCL claim because she fails to allege reasonably particular facts in support of this claim.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Given that the Court sustains Defendants’ Demurrer for failure to plead specificity, the Court does not address the other grounds argued by Defendants.

6. Discrimination: Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Sections

51 and 52 (6th Cause of Action)

The Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation in all business establishments. (Civ. Code § 51; Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing v. Westwood Investors (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1377, 1382) An aggrieved party is anyone who was actually denied full and equal treatment by a business establishment.” (Id. at p. 1383.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants operate a business establishment. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants operate a private post-secondary educational institution, the College of Nursing and Technology. (FAC ¶ 5.) However, Plaintiff does not allege any basis for discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation. Plaintiff states that she was discriminated on the basis of “her race and academic position and class performance” (FAC ¶ 56) but does not state what her race is or provide any other details of what a “racially influenced” statement might entail. (FAC ¶ 2.) By failing to specify what denial of full and equal treatment Plaintiff experienced, Plaintiff fails to establish that she is an aggrieved party entitled to recovery under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Thus, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action with leave to amend.

7. Defamation Per Se, At Common Law, and Pursuant to Civil Code Section 46

The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. (Wong v. Tai Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bodnar made “false accusations” and “defamatory statements” about Plaintiff to a group of her peers. (FAC ¶ 48.) Plaintiff states that she “confirmed and implied such treatments could only rise from the discussions between [Garcia and Bodnar].” (FAC ¶ 49.) Plaintiff states a factual basis for the first element, publication. However, Plaintiff’s allegations that such statements were false and defamatory merely state in a conclusory manner that such statements were false. For instance, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants were “all involved in spreading and discussing false statements, and therefore slandering the Plaintiff” (FAC ¶ 50) are conclusory and insufficient to support her cause of action for defamation.

Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Demurrer to the Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action with leave to amend.

8. Civil Conspiracy

As preliminary matter, the Court notes conspiracy is not a cause of action but a theory of liability. (Moran v. Endres (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 952, 954-55.) “Although conspiracy to commit a tort is not a separate cause of action from the tort itself, alleging a conspiracy fastens liability on those who agree to the plan to commit the wrong as well as those who actually carry it out.” (Stueve Bros. Farms, LLC v. Berger Kahn (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 303, 323.) “The elements of a civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act done in furtherance of the common design.” (Id.)

As a preliminary matter, there are no remaining tort causes of action upon which Plaintiff may base her conspiracy claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Civil Conspiracy cause of action fails as a matter of law.

With regard to the sufficiency of her pleadings, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Badica and College held private meetings with other Defendants and Plaintiff’s classmates and agreed among themselves to discriminate against Plaintiff based on her race and academic position and class performance. (FAC ¶ 55.) “Where factual allegations are based on information and belief, the plaintiff must allege ‘information that “lead[s] [the plaintiff] to believe that the allegations are true.” ’ ” (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1077.) Plaintiff does not allege information that led her to believe that Defendants held private meetings to agree to discriminate against Plaintiff. As such, these allegations lack a factual basis

For the reasons stated above, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s eight cause of action with leave to amend.

9. Bribery

The Court notes that Bribery is not a civil cause of action, it is a criminal offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 67, 641.3.)

Bribery in the Penal Code

Penal Code section 67 provides, “[e]very person who gives or offers any bribe to any executive officer in this state, with intent to influence him in respect to any act, decision, vote, opinion, or other proceeding as such officer, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years, and is disqualified from holding any office in this state.”

Penal Code section 641.3 provides, “(a) Any employee who solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept money or any thing of value from a person other than his or her employer, other than in trust for the employer, corruptly and without the knowledge or consent of the employer, in return for using or agreeing to use his or her position for the benefit of that other person, and any person who offers or gives an employee money or any thing of value under those circumstances, is guilty of commercial bribery. … (c) Commercial bribery is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year if the amount of the bribe is one thousand dollars ($1,000) or less, or by imprisonment in the county jail, or in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years if the amount of the bribe exceeds one thousand dollars ($1,000).”

The Penal Code is enforced by the District Attorney, not private actors. As with Plaintiff’s claims under the Vocational Nursing Practice Act and Code of regulations, Title 16, Article 3, Section 1427(c) discussed above in Sections 1 and 2 on pages 5 through 9, Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a claim under the Penal Code because the above quoted sections do not provide a private right of action. As there is no civil cause of action for bribery, Plaintiff cannot bring a claim for bribery against Defendants.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action for bribery is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Leave to Amend

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s declaration and argument demonstrate that leave to amend should be granted as to her third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action.

Motion to Strike

Defendants also move to strike allegations of punitive damages and attorney’s fees in the Complaint. (Motion to Strike pp. 4-8.)

Given the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Demurrer, the Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.

IV. Conclusion & Order

In light of the foregoing, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED and Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff has 20 days’ leave to amend her third through eighth causes of action.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.