Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 00:20:26 (UTC).

DANIELLE DEBISE VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/05/2017 DANIELLE DEBISE filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOWARD L. HALM, MALCOLM MACKEY, ROBERT B. BROADBELT and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0631

  • Filing Date:

    05/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOWARD L. HALM

MALCOLM MACKEY

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

DEBISE DANIELLE

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

DOES 1 TO 100

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WEIDMANN MARK ESQ.

WEIDMANN & ASSOCIATES PC

SHEGERIAN CARNEY R. ESQ.

SHEGERIAN CARNEY RICHARD ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

MARGARET A. PARKER ATTORNEY AT LAW

PATRICIA A. MOR ATTORNEY AT LAW

RUIZ RODOLFO F. ESQ.

RUIZ RODOLFO FLORENTINO ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF DANIELLE DEBISE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS AND DEFENDANT CITY LOS ANGELES TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQU

4/16/2018: PLAINTIFF DANIELLE DEBISE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS AND DEFENDANT CITY LOS ANGELES TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQU

PLAINTIFF DANIELLE DEBISE'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS AND DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO

4/16/2018: PLAINTIFF DANIELLE DEBISE'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS AND DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFF DANIELLE DEBISE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS AND DEFENDANT CITY LOS ANGELES TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQU

4/16/2018: PLAINTIFF DANIELLE DEBISE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS AND DEFENDANT CITY LOS ANGELES TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REQU

PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES? MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $733.13 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAI

1/26/2018: PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES? MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $733.13 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND PLAI

NOTICE OF TAKING DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE OFF CALENDAR

1/29/2018: NOTICE OF TAKING DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE OFF CALENDAR

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12/14/2017: DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

12/22/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12/29/2017: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/17/2017: PLAINTIFF'S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Unknown

10/27/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

5/19/2017: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

6/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE

8/7/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

8/7/2017: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

8/7/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

Unknown

8/7/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/1/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF DANIELLE DEBISE'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

9/1/2017: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF DANIELLE DEBISE'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

30 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/29/2019
  • at 08:29 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • at 08:29 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (re: Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • at 08:29 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Reply (to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant); Los Angeles World Airports (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Declaration (of Sandra M. Falchetti in Support of Defendant's Reply); Filed by City of Los Angeles (Defendant); Los Angeles World Airports (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
115 More Docket Entries
  • 05/22/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 55; Unknown Event Type - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-05-19 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2017
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Danielle DeBise (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FOR: (1) DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Danielle DeBise (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Danielle DeBise (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC660631    Hearing Date: April 30, 2021    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

danielle debise ;

Plaintiff,

vs.

los angeles world airports , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC660631

Hearing Date:

April 30, 2021

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

Motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication

MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Danielle Debise

Motion for Summary Judgment, or In the Alternative, Summary Adjudication

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Danielle Debise (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action on May 5, 2017, against defendants Los Angeles World Airports and City of Los Angeles (collectively, “Defendant”). Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on July 19, 2019.

On May 6, 2020, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication directed to Plaintiff’s TAC.

On November 6, 2020, while Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication was pending, the court issued an order sustaining Defendant’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 and the tenth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In its order, the court granted Plaintiff leave to file and serve a Fourth Amended Complaint (“4AC”) within 20 days of the court’s order on Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s TAC. (Order, filed November 6, 2020, pp. 7:26-8:4.) On December 14, 2020 (i.e., 38 days after November 6, 2020), Plaintiff filed her 4AC. On December 16, 2020, Defendant filed its answer to the 4AC.

Although Plaintiff exceeded the time permitted by the court to file and serve her 4AC, the court exercises its discretion to allow Plaintiff’s late filing of the 4AC and to deem the 4AC as the operative complaint in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)

“‘“It is well established that an amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading.”’ [Citation.] Thus, an amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints. [Citations.] The amended complaint furnishes the sole basis for the cause of action, and the original complaint ceases to have any effect either as a pleading or as a basis for judgment. [Citation.] [¶] Because there is but one complaint in a civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint. [Citation.] Thus, once an amended complaint is filed, it is error to grant summary adjudication on a cause of action contained in a previous complaint. [Citation.]” (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1130-1131.)

Here, Defendant moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s TAC. However, the operative 4AC supersedes the TAC. The court therefore denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication as moot.

The court orders Plaintiff to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2021

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC660631    Hearing Date: November 06, 2020    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

danielle debise ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

los angeles world airports , et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC660631

Hearing Date:

November 6, 2020

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

DEMURRER TO plaintiff’s Third AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant City of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Danielle Debise

Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Danielle Debise (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action on May 5, 2017, against defendants Los Angeles World Airports (the “Airport”) and City of Los Angeles (the “City”) (collectively, “Defendant”).

On July 8, 2019, the court issued an order sustaining in part Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed November 21, 2018. The court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action for disability harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and eleventh cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), with leave to amend. (Order, filed July 8, 2019, pp. 7:1-3, 9:16-18.) The court overruled Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s twelfth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Order, filed July 8, 2019, p. 10:15-17.)

Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on July 19, 2019. The TAC asserts various causes of action for violations of FEHA, including discrimination, retaliation, harassment. The TAC also asserts causes of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendant now demurs to the eighth cause of action for disability harassment in violation of FEHA, the ninth cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and the twelfth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that each fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

DISCUSSION

  1. Allegations of the TAC

In the TAC, Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff, a 35-year-old African American mother, worked as a security officer at the Airport for approximately six months, beginning November 2, 2015. (TAC, ¶ 8.) In or around December 2015, Plaintiff’s training officer Luis Harris (“Harris”) remarked that she had “a big ol’ butt” and asked her about a prior relationship with a former employee, using vulgar language. (TAC, ¶11a.) Later, Harris approached Plaintiff again and remarked about Plaintiff’s ex-boyfriend. (TAC, ¶11b.) From January 2016 until Plaintiff’s termination, Harris often propositioned Plaintiff for sex. (TAC, ¶ 11d, f.) In or around April 2016, Harris intentionally pushed his groin against Plaintiff’s shoulder. (TAC, ¶ 11l.)

Between December 2015 and February 2016, Lieutenant Goodman also asked about Plaintiff’s sexual history with this same ex-boyfriend. (TAC, ¶ 11c.) In or around February 2016, Lieutenant Goodman asked Plaintiff to sit on his lap and also propositioned her to have sex with him. (TAC, ¶ 11e.)

In or around March 2016, Plaintiff reported the harassing conduct to various individuals at the City, including Lieutenant Goodman, Sergeant Carter, Lieutenant Petrus, Vern Williams, and Karma Doe, but Plaintiff was not transferred out of Harris’s supervision. (TAC, ¶ 11g, h, i, j.) In or around April 2016, Plaintiff overheard male employees discussing that they should not talk to Plaintiff because she would get them fired for harassment. (TAC, ¶ 11k.) In or around April 2016, Harris wrote a negative review of Plaintiff’s performance. (TAC, ¶ 11m.)

Plaintiff suffered a foot injury at work in or around April 2016. (TAC, ¶ 11n.) When Plaintiff reported her injury to Lieutenant Goodman, he responded: “You just got bad feet because of all that ass you got.” (TAC, ¶ 11o.) In or around April 2016, Plaintiff was placed on medical leave. (TAC, ¶ 11p.) On or around May 5, 2016, while Plaintiff was still on leave, Plaintiff received a letter stating that she was being terminated from her employment. (TAC, ¶ 12.)

  1. Eighth Cause of Action for Disability Harassment in Violation of FEHA

Government Code § 12940, subdivision (j)(1)¿prohibits harassment of an employee “because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.”  (Gov. Code § 12940, subd. (j)(1).)  An employer may be strictly liable for harassment of an employee by an agent or supervisor. (State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1034.)  To constitute harassment, the claimed harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment. (Etter v. Veriflo Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 457, 465.)  Whether harassment exists based upon a hostile work environment is determined by considering all of the circumstances, which may include frequency, severity and job interference. (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 462.) Pursuant to Government Code section 12923, “[a] single incident of harassing conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of a hostile work environment if the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” (Gov. Code, § 12923, subd. (b).)

In its July 8, 2019 order sustaining Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s cause of action for disability harassment, the court found that Plaintiff’s cause of action for disability harassment failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a hostile work environment. (Order, filed July 8, 2019, p. 6:26-28.) The court noted that an allegation of just one statement attributable to her disability (the statement “You just got bad feet because of all that ass you got”) does not prevent Plaintiff from stating a claim for harassment, but found that Plaintiff failed to allege any facts to demonstrate that the statement at issue unreasonably interfered with her work performance or that the statement created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (Id. at p. 6:18-28.)

In the TAC, Plaintiff now alleges the following in support of the cause of action for disability harassment: “When Plaintiff returned to work the next day, she reported her injury to Lietenant Goodman. Plaintiff proceeded to ask Lieutenant Goodman to allow her to work a two-man post, also known as a sit-down post, a position commonly assigned to officers who suffered from injuries and required light duties. Rather than afford plaintiff the opportunity to work the sit-down post, or otherwise discuss any alternative light-duty assignments with plaintiff, Lieutenant Goodman, plaintiff’s superior, curtly stated, ‘You just got bad feet because of all that ass you got.’ As a result of this comment, plaintiff felt intimidated and discouraged from being able to seek further assistance from Goodman, whom she approached after being denied light-duty from Human Resources. As a result, plaintiff was forced to be placed off work, causing her to receive partial pay and had her probationary period of employment to be extended, which notably had been completed at the time of her injury.” (TAC, ¶ 11o.)

Defendant contends that the disability harassment claim still fails because Plaintiff’s additional allegation that she felt intimidated and discouraged from seeking further assistance does not make Goodman’s statement severe and pervasive harassment. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that her additional facts demonstrate how Goodman’s statement interfered with Plaintiff’s work performance, which resulted in her being denied accommodations and subsequently placed off of work, and created an intimidating and offensive work environment that impeded the interactive process with her supervisor, Goodman. In reply, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s allegations do not describe how Goodman actually interfered with Plaintiff’s request for light duty work. However, Plaintiff alleges that Goodman denied her request for light duty work ("Rather than afford plaintiff the opportunity to work the sit-down post, or otherwise discuss any alternative light-duty assignments with plaintiff, Lieutenant Goodman, plaintiff’s superior, curtly stated, ‘You just got bad feet because of all that ass you got.’”)

The court finds that Plaintiff has stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for disability harassment in violation of FEHA. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The court therefore overrules Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for disability harassment in violation of FEHA.

  1. Ninth Cause of Action for Violation of Labor Code section 1102.5

Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) provides:

An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties.

This statute reflects the “broad public policy interest in encouraging workplace whistle blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.” (Green v. Ralee Eng'g Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 77.) “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation ‘a plaintiff must show (1) she engaged in a protected activity, (2) her employer subjected her to an adverse employment action, and (3) there is a causal link between the two.’” (Mokler v. Cty. of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 138.)

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 on the ground that Plaintiff fails to allege that she timely presented a government claim (within six months or one year of the accrual of the cause of action). (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).) “Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is a condition precedent to the claimant’s ability to maintain an action against the public entity. [Citation.] ‘Only after the public entity’s board has acted upon or is deemed to have rejected the claim may the injured person bring a lawsuit alleging a cause of action in tort against the public entity.’ [Citation.]” (J.J. v. County of San Diego (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1219.) “The failure to timely present a claim to the public entity bars the claimant from filing a lawsuit against that public entity.” (Ibid.)

In opposition, Plaintiff points to allegations in the TAC that Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a timely administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and receiving a DFEH right-to-sue letter. (TAC, ¶ 16.) Plaintiff contends that the TAC adequately alleges that Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies for her Labor Code violation claim because her Labor Code violation claim is based on the same set of facts set forth in her administrative complaint with the DFEH.

In reply, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s DFEH complaint does not satisfy the requirement for Government Code section 911.2, subdivision (a), because the claim presentation requirements of FEHA claims is different from presentation of Labor Code violation claims under the Government Claims Act, and presentation of a Labor Code violation claim to the DFEH will not satisfy the claim presentation requirement. The court agrees.

“[F]ailure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claims presentation requirement [under section 911.2] subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.” (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239.) In Le Mere v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 237, 241, 247, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court properly sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 because, even though the plaintiff filed administrative complaints with the DEFH, the plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. The court therefore finds that the TAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 because the TAC fails to allege compliance with Government Code section 911.2.

In her opposition, Plaintiff states that she can further amend the TAC to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. The court therefore sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, with leave to amend.

  1. Tenth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

With regard to Plaintiff’s cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Defendant similarly contends that Plaintiff fails to allege that she timely presented a government claim. The court finds that the TAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the TAC fails to allege compliance with Government Code section 911.2. The court therefore sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the tenth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, with leave to amend.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court rules as follows.

The court overrules defendant City of Los Angeles’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for disability harassment in violation of FEHA.

The court sustains defendant City of Los Angeles’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 and the tenth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, with leave to amend.

The court grants plaintiff Danielle Debise leave to file and serve an amended complaint within 20 days of the date of this order. If no amended complaint is filed within 20 days, the court orders defendant City of Los Angeles to file and serve its answer to the Third Amended Complaint within 30 days of notice of this order.

The court orders defendant City of Los Angeles to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 6, 2020

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court