This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/05/2020 at 21:53:25 (UTC).

JOSE RAMOS VS BRIDEGE TO HOME, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/31/2020 JOSE RAMOS filed an Other lawsuit against BRIDEGE TO HOME. 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 Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0970

  • Filing Date:

    01/31/2020

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

RAMOS JOSE

Defendants

BRIDEGE TO HOME

ROBERS KIMBERLY

FUTTERMAN SAMANTHA

NAJARRO CHRIS

LOS ANGELES FAMILY HOUSING

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

SIEPLER JAMES EDWARD

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

8/7/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal Filed Not Entered

6/22/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal Filed Not Entered

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

4/30/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

4/6/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of James E. Siepler Regarding Meet and Confer re Demurrer

3/27/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of James E. Siepler Regarding Meet and Confer re Demurrer

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

3/30/2020: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

1/31/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/31/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

1/31/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

1/31/2020: Complaint - Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

1/31/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

1/31/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: Jose Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Jose Ramos on 01/31/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Jose Ramos as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/07/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/03/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 08/07/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request for Dismissal Filed Not Entered: Name Extension: Filed Not Entered; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:2013419 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:2013420 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:2013421 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:2013422 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:2013423 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jose Ramos (Plaintiff); As to: Bridege to Home (Defendant); Los Angeles Family Housing (Defendant); Samantha Futterman (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/03/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Jose Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Jose Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jose Ramos (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC00970    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: 25

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Los Angeles Family Housing and Samantha Futterman’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND as to the first, second, and fourth causes of action, and SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the third cause of action.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of June 18, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of June 18, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff Jose Ramos (“Plaintiff”) filed an action, in pro per, for failure to provide a safe environment, breach of contract, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Bridge to Home (“BTH”), Los Angeles Family Housing (“LAFH”) Samantha Futterman (“Futterman”), Kimberly Roberts (“Roberts”), and Chris Najarro (“Najarro”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

On March 30, 2020, Defendants LAFH and Futterman filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Demurrer”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice as to all parties and all causes of action. (4/30/20 Request for Dismissal.) However, the request was rejected due to an error on Plaintiff’s form. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed an amended request for dismissal.

  1. Legal Standard

“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).)

  1. Discussion

 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). (Dem., Siepler Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)

Defendants LAFH and Futterman demur to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the basis that each cause of action is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. (Dem., p. 3:5-17.)

Demurrers for failure to state a cause of action or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are “general” demurrers. (McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 77.) All other grounds listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 are “special” demurrers. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider arguments on the ground of uncertainty.

A. First Cause of Action – Negligence

 

Although difficult to ascertain, Plaintiff’s first cause of action is apparently one for negligence. (Compl., p. 2.) A negligence cause of action requires a plaintiff to allege defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, defendant’s breach of that breach of duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (Pereida v. HR Mobile Services (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had a duty to provide a safe and healthy environment, to properly supervise, train and monitor its employees, and to ensure compliance with all applicable statutes, laws, and regulations. (Compl., 2:5-6, 12-14.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants breached that duty and that he suffered “legally cognizable damages” proximately caused by Defendants’ breach. (Id. at p. 2:16-18, 25-27.)

However, Plaintiff’s only factual allegations are that he has a heart condition and that Defendants’ breach “led to an unreasonable times to the emergency room and Plaintiff’s youngest daughter ended up in a mental health facility and foreseeable risk having permanent mental health illness to her and individuals including Plaintiff” [sic]. (Compl., p. 2:7-11; 14-18.) The remaining allegations are mere legal conclusions. Thus, the Court finds the facts alleged are insufficient to plead a negligence cause of action.

The demurrer as to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

B. Second Cause of Action – Breach of 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.] ‘In an action based on a written contract, a plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.’ [Citation.]” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the contract by not providing the promised services, which included providing a safe and comfortable setting, protecting personal information, and providing information about how to file a complaint. (Compl., p. 3:12-4:5.) However, Plaintiff does not allege which parties entered into the alleged contract and when, whether Plaintiff performed all of his obligations under the alleged contract, or what damages Plaintiff suffered as a result of the alleged breach.

Thus, the Demurrer as to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

C. Third Cause of Action – Contributing to Delinquency of a Minor under Penal Code § 272

Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated Penal Code section 272. (Compl., p. 4: 19-28.) Defendants LAFH and Futterman demur to this cause of action on the basis that it is not a recognizable civil cause of action. (Dem., p. 7:13:21.)

The Court agrees. As the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear penal code violations, the demurrer as to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

D. Fourth Cause of Action – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants ignored his complaints about other participants and that he was retaliated against after filing complaints. (Compl., p. 5:1-15.) Because of this, Plaintiff alleges Defendants are liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Id.) However, negligent infliction of emotional distress “is not an independent tort; it is the tort of negligence to which the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. [Citation.]” (Ess v. Eskaton Properties, Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 120, 126.)

As noted above, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for negligence. Accordingly, the demurrer as to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Los Angeles Family Housing and Samantha Futterman’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND as to the first, second, and fourth causes of action, and SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the third cause of action.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.