The demurrer of the defendant County of Orange to the second and third causes of action of the first amended complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave. The amended complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action as to those counts.
The second cause of action is for negligent hiring and retention. The County argues no such cause of action can be stated against it, citing de Villers v. County of San Diego (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 238.
The plaintiff does not address this argument, nor the case cited in her opposition, and is therefore deemed to have conceded the point.
The plaintiff attaches a proposed second amended complaint to show she has the ability to amend to state a cause of action on this theory. But nowhere in the proposed second amended complaint does she allege (or state facts) showing a special relationship and other facts that would state a cause of action on this ground.
The third cause of action alleges a Bane Act violation under Civil Code section 52.1.
Hearing Date
July 02, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The demurrer of the defendant County of Orange to the second and third causes of action of the first amended complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave. The amended complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action as to those counts.
The second cause of action is for negligent hiring and retention. The County argues no such cause of action can be stated against it, citing de Villers v. County of San Diego (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 238.
The plaintiff does not address this argument, nor the case cited in her opposition, and is therefore deemed to have conceded the point.
The plaintiff attaches a proposed second amended complaint to show she has the ability to amend to state a cause of action on this theory. But nowhere in the proposed second amended complaint does she allege (or state facts) showing a special relationship and other facts that would state a cause of action on this ground.
The third cause of action alleges a Bane Act violation under Civil Code section 52.1.