Zambrano v. City of Santa Maria
Case No: 18CV03691
Hearing Date: Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Dismiss

In a complaint filed on July 27, 2018, plaintiff Aaron Zambrano alleges as follows: He was at the hospital on June 2, 2018. Police officers detained him because of an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license. He was placed in a police vehicle, where he vomited over 10 times. Plaintiff explained that he has panic attacks and that he was short of breath. At the police station, he was detained in the vehicle where the police officers rolled up the windows and told him he would be punished if he asked for water and help. He was dehydrated and had another panic attack. The complaint alleges the following causes of action against the city of Santa Maria: (1) general negligence; and (2) intentional tort.[1]

The City of Santa Maria (“City”) demurred to the complaint on the basis that plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the Governmen Claims Act. City also argues that plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts to support a cause of action. There was no opposition, nor did plaintiff appear at the hearing. On September 25, 2018, the court sustained the demurrer. On September 25, 2018, the City served and filed a Notice of Court Ruling on Demurrer to Complaint and of Continuance of Case Management Conference.

On September 10, 2018, the court ordered this case related to Zambrano v. Marian Medical Center. (Case No. 18CV03692) On December 3, 2018, the court appointed Stephen Anderson to be plaintiff’s guardian ad litem in both cases. (See 12/3/18 Minute Order; 12/3/18 Case Management Conference Order, ¶ 18.)

On February 25, 2019, the City filed a motion for an order of dismissal on the basis that plaintiff had not filed an amended pleading or an answer.[2] The motion was timely served by mail on plaintiff, but not on GAL Stephen Anderson. A guardian ad litem is not a party to the action but the representative of record of a “ward” (e.g., minor or adult lacking legal capacity) who lacks capacity to represent himself or herself. (J.W. v. Sup.Ct. (1993) 17 CA4th 958, 964; McClintock v. West (2013) 219 CA4th 540, 549.) A guardian ad litem is appointed specifically to “prosecute or defend” a suit. (Berry v. Chaplin (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d 652, 658.) The guardian ad litem has the power to assent to procedural steps that will facilitate a determination of the case. (Torres v. Friedman (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 880, 887.) It follows that any motion brought subsequent to the appointment of a guardian ad litem should be served on the GAL. The motion is consequently denied without prejudice for inadequate service.

Appearances are required.

[1] On September 10, 2018, the court ordered this case related to Zambrano v. Marian Medical Center (Case No. 18CV03692).

[2] If the court sustains a demurrer, leave to amend within 10 days is deemed granted, unless the court orders otherwise. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g).) The time within which to answer or amend runs not from the date of actual ruling, but from the date of service of notice of the court’s decision or order, unless such notice is waived in open court and entered in the minutes of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 472b.) Where a demurrer has been sustained or motion to strike has been granted with leave to amend, but no amendment has been made within the time allowed by the court, the court may dismiss on motion of either party. (Code Civ. Proc. § 581, subd. (f)(2) & (4).)