This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/14/2021 at 18:52:41 (UTC).

BRIAN KEITH BARNETT VS RAYBON JOHNSON, WARDEN, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/06/2020 BRIAN KEITH BARNETT filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against RAYBON JOHNSON, WARDEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5695

  • Filing Date:

    07/06/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BARNETT BRIAN KEITH

Defendants

OJEDA A CCII AC

FORDHAM M. CCII AC

SGT. D.T. JEMISON FACILITY A PROGRAM SERGEANT CSP-LAC

JOHNSON RAYBON WARDEN

JEMISON DAVID T. SERGEANT FACILITY A PROGRAM CSP-LAC

FORDHAM MONTE CCII AC

OJEDA ARACELY CCII AC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

CHOI MINA

SHAFF COLIN ANDRIS

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing

5/5/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (as to First A...)

5/5/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (as to First A...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

5/7/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

3/29/2021: Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

4/1/2021: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing of Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

4/1/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing of Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

4/1/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Amended Complaint - First Amended Complaint for Possession of Personal Property and for Damages

3/15/2021: Amended Complaint - First Amended Complaint for Possession of Personal Property and for Damages

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendants Raybon Johnson, Warden; M. Fordham, CCI...)

1/20/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendants Raybon Johnson, Warden; M. Fordham, CCI...)

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to the defendant's notice of demurrer and demurrer

12/15/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to the defendant's notice of demurrer and demurrer

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

11/25/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

11/9/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

11/9/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

10/21/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of completion of the service of process

9/14/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of completion of the service of process

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

7/13/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

7/6/2020: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/6/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketNotice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by: Brian Keith Barnett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketOn the Amended Complaint (1st) filed by Brian Keith Barnett on 03/15/2021, entered Order for Dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketNotice of Hearing; Filed by: Raybon Johnson, Warden (Defendant); Monte Fordham, CCII AC (Defendant); Aracely Ojeda, CCII AC (Defendant); David T. Jemison, Sergeant Facility A Program CSP-LAC (Defendant); As to: Brian Keith Barnett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (as to First A...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (as to First Amended Complaint) scheduled for 05/05/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 05/05/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Further Response To Subpoena (Duces Tecum) and Imposing Monetary Sanctions, Supporting Declaration of Plaintiff, and Memorandum scheduled for 11/03/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 05/05/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 05/05/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/10/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 04/01/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2021
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 05/05/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by: Raybon Johnson, Warden (Defendant); Monte Fordham, CCII AC (Defendant); Aracely Ojeda, CCII AC (Defendant); David T. Jemison, Sergeant Facility A Program CSP-LAC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 07/13/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Court Fees: Filed By: Brian Keith Barnett (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 07/13/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/10/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Brian Keith Barnett (Plaintiff); As to: Raybon Johnson, Warden (Defendant); M. Fordham, CCII AC (Defendant); A Ojeda, CCII AC (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Brian Keith Barnett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Brian Keith Barnett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC05695    Hearing Date: May 5, 2021    Dept: 26

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Raybon Johnson, Warden CSP-LAC, M Fordham, A. Ojeda and D.T. Jemison’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Brian Keith Barnett (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed the instant action against Defendants Raybon Johnson, Warden CSP-LAC, M Fordham, A. Ojeda and D.T. Jemison. Plaintiff alleges Defendants are the warden and correctional staff with access to Facility A at California State Prison A in Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”). (FAC, ¶¶1-4.) Defendants allegedly converted Plaintiff’s personal property. (Id. at ¶¶8-10.)

On January 20, 2021, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint with 30 days’ leave to amend. Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on March 15, 2021. Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint on April 1, 2021. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

A meet and confer effort is not required in this action prior to filing a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (d)(1).) Defendants demur to the First Amended Complaint for failure to state sufficient facts and Defendants’ immunity under Government Code §§ 820.2 and 820.8. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

Defendants also request that the Court take judicial notice of the certified claims record from the California Department of General Services, Claimant Brian Keith Barnett, Claim No. 20004656. The request is granted pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452. (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 376.)

Alleging Compliance with the Claims Requirement

The Court previously sustained the demurrer to the Complaint for failure to allege compliance with the claims requirement under the Government Code. (Minute Order, 01/20/21.) A claim for money damages be presented to the relevant public entity prior to filing not more than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Cal. Govt. Code, §§ 905, 911.2.) Presentation of such a claim is a condition precedent to filing a suit against the public entity. (Cal. Govt. Code, § 945.4.) If the injured party fails to file a timely claim, “a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present such claim.” (Cal. Govt. Code, § 911.4, subd. (a).) Additionally, compliance with the claims requirement must be stated in the Complaint to properly allege the cause of action against the public entity. (Dilts v. Cantua Elementary School Dist. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 27, 31 [holding “In those circumstances in which a claim must be presented, the plaintiff must allege compliance or circumstances excusing compliance, or the complaint is subject to general demurrer.”].)

A claim for injury to personal property against a public entity must be submitted to an office of the Department of General Services. (Cal. Govt. Code, §§ 911.2, subd. (a); 915, subd. (b)(1).) Pursuant to Defendants’ Demurrer, the Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s claim submitted to the California Department of General Services on May 18, 2020 and the notice of non-compliance sent to Plaintiff on July 29, 2020. (Demurrer, RJN, Exh. 1.) The alleged conversion of Plaintiff’s personal property took place on September 23, 2019. (FAC, ¶¶4-5.) The deadline to submit a claim based on the September 23, 2019 incident, therefore, was March 23, 2020.

Based on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, matters of which the Court may judicial notice, and the lack of any opposition, Defendants have demonstrated that Plaintiff cannot allege timely compliance with the claims requirement. The Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, therefore, is sustained on this basis without leave to amend.

Conclusion

Defendants Raybon Johnson, Warden CSP-LAC, M Fordham, A. Ojeda and D.T. Jemison’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC05695    Hearing Date: January 20, 2021    Dept: 26

Barnett v. Johnson, et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Raybon Johnson, Warden CSP-LAC, M. Fordham, A. Ojeda and D.T. Jemison’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLAIMS REQUIREMENT WITH 30 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. THE DEMURRER IS OVERRULED ON ALL OTHER GROUNDS.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Brian Keith Barnett (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed the instant action against Defendants Raybon Johnson, Warden CSP-LAC, M. Fordham, A. Ojeda and D.T. Jemison (“Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges Defendants are the warden and correctional staff with access to Facility A at California State Prison A in Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”). (Compl., ¶¶2-6.) Defendants allegedly converted Plaintiff’s personal property. (Id. at ¶¶7-8.)

Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint on September 28, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 15, 2020.

Discussion

A meet and confer effort is not required in this action prior to filing a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (d)(1).) Defendants demur to the Complaint on the following grounds: (1) failure to state sufficient facts; (2) Defendants are entitled to immunities under Government Code §§ 820.2 and 820.8; (3) Plaintiff did not plead compliance with the requirements of the Government Claims Act as set forth in Government Code § 905.2; and (4) the Complaint is ambiguous and unintelligible such that Defendants cannot reasonably respond.

Special demurrers, including those for uncertainty, are not permitted in a court of limited jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) Therefore, the Court will not rule on the demurrer for uncertainty under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f).

Alleging Compliance with the Claims Requirement

A claim for money damages be presented to the relevant public entity prior to filing not more than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Cal. Govt. Code, §§ 905, 911.2.) Presentation of such a claim is a condition precedent to filing a suit against the public entity. (Cal. Govt. Code, § 945.4.) If the injured party fails to file a timely claim, “a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present such claim.” (Cal. Govt. Code, § 911.4, subd. (a).) Additionally, compliance with the claims requirement must be stated in the Complaint to properly allege the cause of action against the public entity. (Dilts v. Cantua Elementary School Dist. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 27, 31 [holding “In those circumstances in which a claim must be presented, the plaintiff must allege compliance or circumstances excusing compliance, or the complaint is subject to general demurrer.”].)

Defendants argue without citation that a claim must be submitted to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. (Demurrer, p. 9:23-25.) Plaintiff’s opposition to the Demurrer contends he did submit an adminstrative appeal and a claim to Claim to California Department of General Services Government Claims Program Office of Risk Management. (Opp., p. 4:12-23.) The Complaint mentions these actions, as well. (Compl., p. 6:20-26.) However, it is unclear whether these actions were timely. The conversion allegedly occurred on September 23, 2019, but the date of Plaintiff’s claims are not set forth. Without clear allegations of compliance with the claims requirement, the Complaint is subject to general demurrer.

Failure to Allege Sufficient Facts to State a Cause of Action

“The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages....’ [Citation.]” (Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 208.) Defendant demurs on the grounds that Plaintiff does not allege Defendants exerted control over Plaintiff’s personal property and intended to keep Plaintiff from taking possession. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff does not allege that he had a right to possession of the property at the time of the alleged conversion. The Complaint, however, does allege that Plaintiff was at all times the owner of the property that allegedly went missing from his cell. (Compl., ¶7.) The Complaint also alleges that Defendants’ taking of the personal property was intentional and with the purpose of obstructing Plaintiff’s administrative appeal rights. (Id. at ¶10.) The Court finds these are sufficient allegations to support a cause of action for conversion based on Defendants’ control of Plaintiff’s personal possessions.

The demurrer for failure to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action is overruled.

Immunity Under Cal. Govt. Code §§ 820.8 and 820.2

Finally, Defendants Johnson and Jemison argue that they are immune because supervisors are not liable for the conduct of employees. Under Cal. Govt. Code section 820.8, “a public employee is not liable for an injury caused by the act or omission of another person.” (Cal. Govt. Code, § 820.8.) Immunity under the Government Code, however, is a defense and “a demurrer based on an affirmative defense will be sustained only where the face of the complaint discloses that the action is necessarily barred by the defense. (Casterson v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 177, 183 [citing CrossTalk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobson (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 631, 635].)

The Complaint here does not disclose that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by governmental immunity. As the demurrer itself argues, there are no specific facts regarding each Defendants’ involvement in the alleged conversion such that the Court can find Defendants Johnson and Jemison liability is vicarious instead of direct. Nor does the Complaint offer any allegations that would demonstrate whether Defendants’ conduct was discretionary, and therefore, immunized by Cal. Government Code section 820.2. Section 820.2 holds that “A public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in

him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 820.2.)

The demurrer based on governmental immunity, therefore, is overruled.

Conclusion

Defendants Raybon Johnson, Warden CSP-LAC, M. Fordham, A. Ojeda and D.T. Jemison’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLAIMS REQUIREMENT WITH 30 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. THE DEMURRER IS OVERRULED ON ALL OTHER GROUNDS.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHOI MINA

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAFF, COLIN ANDRIS