On September 23, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Madrid, Suzanne,
and
Huot, Elisa,
Maughan, Denita,
Panama-Buena Vista Foundation,
Panama-Buena Vista Union School District,
Panama-Buena Vista Union School District Financing Corporation,
for 36-CV Wrongful Termination - Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of Kern County.
Preview
Superior Court of California
County of Kern
Bakersfield Department 17
Hearing Date: 07/16/2020 Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM
MADRID VS PANAMA-BUENA VISTA FOUNDATION
BCV-19-102702
Honorable: Thomas S. Clark Clerk: Linda K. Hall
Court Reporter: Amy Maier Bailiff: Deputy Sheriff
Interpreter: Language Of:
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS
Hearing Start Time:8:56 AM
The above entitled cause came on regularly on this date and time with parties and/or counsel appearing as
reflected.
Counsel Caroline L. Dasovich appeared via court call on behalf of Plaintiff.
Counsel Christopher J. Hagan appeared via court call on behalf of Defendant(s).
Matter argued by counsel and submitted.
The Court makes the following findings and orders:
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Denied in part/Granted in part.
Moving Defendants concede that the first cause of action for violation of FEHA is not subject to the claims
presentation requirement. The cause of action was not challenged on any other basis. Accordingly, the motion is
denied as to the first cause of action.
The moving argument that compliance with the Tort Claims Act must be alleged to state a valid cause of action has
merit as to Plaintiff's remaining causes of action, except for the third cause of action which Plaintiff dismissed on
04/10/20. This is true with respect to public entity Defendants as well as public employee Defendants, who have
been sued for acts or omissions in the scope of their employment as is alleged here in Complaint 7. (See Briggs v.
Lawrence (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 605, 613 - "the Legislature included in the Tort Claims Act what amounts to a
requirement that (with exceptions not relevant here) one who sues a public employee on the basis of acts or
omissions in the scope of the defendant's employment have filed a claim against the public-entity employer
pursuant to the procedure for claims against public entities. (Gov.Code, 950.2, 950.6, subd. (a), 911.2, 945.4; Van
Alstyne, supra, 5.63-5.68, pp. 548-556.) Failure to allege compliance renders the complaint in such an action
subject to general demurrer.")
MINUTES
Page 1 of 2
MADRID VS PANAMA-BUENA VISTA FOUNDATION BCV-19-102702
Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh
causes of action for failure to allege compliance with the claims presentation requirement of the Tort Claims Act,
or excuse therefrom. Plaintiff may amend.
With respect to the fourth cause of action (invasion of privacy), fifth cause of action (defamation) and the seventh
cause of action (interference with prospective economic relations), these causes of action fail to allege any
statutory grounds for liability. It is well settled that pursuant to Government Code section 815, a public entity is
not liable for any injury except as otherwise provided by statute. Plaintiff's opposition argues Govt. Code section
815.2, not alleged in the pleading, thereby conceding the insufficiency of the pleading allegations."to state a
cause of action every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity,
including the existence of a statutory duty. [citation omitted] Duty cannot be alleged simply by stating 'defendant
had a duty under the law'; that is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. The facts showing the existence of
the claimed duty must be alleged. [citation omitted] Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be created
by statute or 'enactment,' the statute or 'enactment' claimed to establish the duty must at the very least be
identified.") Plaintiff may amend.
With respect to punitive damages, the court agrees with Plaintiff's opposition that a motion for judgment on the
pleadings is not the proper vehicle to eliminate punitive damages. However, the court agrees with the moving
argument that punitive damages are not recoverable against public entities pursuant to Govt. Code section 818, a
point Plaintiff's opposition appears to concede. Yet, as Plaintiff correctly points out, section 818 does not prohibit
punitive damages against public employees.
In order to address the punitive damages issue, the court, in its own discretion, pursuant to CCP section 436,
hereby strikes the Complaint's punitive damages allegations as they pertain to the public entity Defendants.
Plaintiff may amend to clarify the punitive damages allegations as to the individual public employee Defendants.
Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint by 08/13/2020.
(See reporter's transcript for full ruling)
Case management conference set for 08/06/2020 is reset and will now be heard on 10/14/2020, at 8:15 a.m., in
Department 17.
Clerk's minutes will be the order of the court.
Further notice waived.
FUTURE HEARINGS:
October 14, 2020 8:15 AM Case Management Conference
Clark, Thomas S.
Bakersfield Department 17
Sheriff, Deputy
MINUTES FINALIZED BY: LINDA HALL ON: 7/16/2020
MINUTES
Page 2 of 2
MADRID VS PANAMA-BUENA VISTA FOUNDATION BCV-19-102702
Document Filed Date
July 16, 2020
Case Filing Date
September 23, 2019
Category
36-CV Wrongful Termination - Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Superior Court of California County of Kern Bakersfield Department 17 Hearing Date: 07/16/2020 Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM MADRID VS PANAMA-BUENA VISTA FOUNDATION BCV-19-102702 Honorable: Thomas S. Clark Clerk: Linda K. Hall Court Reporter: Amy Maier Bailiff: Deputy Sheriff Interpreter: Language Of: NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS Hearing Start Time:8:56 AM The above entitled cause came on regularly on this date and time with parties and/or counsel appearing as reflected. Counsel Caroline L. Dasovich appeared via court call on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel Christopher J. Hagan appeared via court call on behalf of Defendant(s). Matter argued by counsel and submitted. The Court makes the following findings and orders: Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Denied in part/Granted in part. Moving Defendants concede that the first cause of action for violation of FEHA is not subject to the claims presentation requirement. The cause of action was not challenged on any other basis. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to the first cause of action. The moving argument that compliance with the Tort Claims Act must be alleged to state a valid cause of action has merit as to Plaintiff's remaining causes of action, except for the third cause of action which Plaintiff dismissed on 04/10/20. This is true with respect to public entity Defendants as well as public employee Defendants, who have been sued for acts or omissions in the scope of their employment as is alleged here in Complaint 7. (See Briggs v. Lawrence (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 605, 613 - "the Legislature included in the Tort Claims Act what amounts to a requirement that (with exceptions not relevant here) one who sues a public employee on the basis of acts or omissions in the scope of the defendant's employment have filed a claim against the public-entity employer pursuant to the procedure for claims against public entities. (Gov.Code, 950.2, 950.6, subd. (a), 911.2, 945.4; Van Alstyne, supra, 5.63-5.68, pp. 548-556.) Failure to allege compliance renders the complaint in such an action subject to general demurrer.") MINUTES Page 1 of 2 MADRID VS PANAMA-BUENA VISTA FOUNDATION BCV-19-102702 Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action for failure to allege compliance with the claims presentation requirement of the Tort Claims Act, or excuse therefrom. Plaintiff may amend. With respect to the fourth cause of action (invasion of privacy), fifth cause of action (defamation) and the seventh cause of action (interference with prospective economic relations), these causes of action fail to allege any statutory grounds for liability. It is well settled that pursuant to Government Code section 815, a public entity is not liable for any injury except as otherwise provided by statute. Plaintiff's opposition argues Govt. Code section 815.2, not alleged in the pleading, thereby conceding the insufficiency of the pleading allegations."to state a cause of action every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity, including the existence of a statutory duty. [citation omitted] Duty cannot be alleged simply by stating 'defendant had a duty under the law'; that is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. The facts showing the existence of the claimed duty must be alleged. [citation omitted] Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be created by statute or 'enactment,' the statute or 'enactment' claimed to establish the duty must at the very least be identified.") Plaintiff may amend. With respect to punitive damages, the court agrees with Plaintiff's opposition that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is not the proper vehicle to eliminate punitive damages. However, the court agrees with the moving argument that punitive damages are not recoverable against public entities pursuant to Govt. Code section 818, a point Plaintiff's opposition appears to concede. Yet, as Plaintiff correctly points out, section 818 does not prohibit punitive damages against public employees. In order to address the punitive damages issue, the court, in its own discretion, pursuant to CCP section 436, hereby strikes the Complaint's punitive damages allegations as they pertain to the public entity Defendants. Plaintiff may amend to clarify the punitive damages allegations as to the individual public employee Defendants. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint by 08/13/2020. (See reporter's transcript for full ruling) Case management conference set for 08/06/2020 is reset and will now be heard on 10/14/2020, at 8:15 a.m., in Department 17. Clerk's minutes will be the order of the court. Further notice waived. FUTURE HEARINGS: October 14, 2020 8:15 AM Case Management Conference Clark, Thomas S. Bakersfield Department 17 Sheriff, Deputy MINUTES FINALIZED BY: LINDA HALL ON: 7/16/2020 MINUTES Page 2 of 2 MADRID VS PANAMA-BUENA VISTA FOUNDATION BCV-19-102702