Case Number: BC530500    Hearing Date: September 08, 2014    Dept: 58

JUDGE ROLF TREU
DEPARTMENT 58
________________________________________
Hearing Date: Monday, September 8, 2014
Calendar No: 5
Case Name: Jordan v. LA County Department of Children & Family Services, et al.
Case No.: BC530500
Motion: Demurrer
Moving Party: Defendant s County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Responding Party: Plaintiff James Jordan
Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Demurrer is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.
________________________________________

Background –
On 12/13/13, Plaintiff James Jordan, in propria persona, filed this action against Defendants LA County Department of Children & Family Services and LA County Sheriff’s Department. On 4/25/14, the Court struck the Complaint on its own motion finding that no recognizable pleading had been filed. On 5/30/14, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

Demurrer –
Defendants County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department demur to the FAC.

1. Procedural Defects
Preliminarily, the Court notes that the FAC consists of 21 narrative pages of allegations and arguments, interspersed with various quotations from policies and rules of the County of Los Angeles, and followed by over 100 pages of attached documents as evidence. The Court notes that Plaintiff wholly fails to separately indicate his claims and against which parties they are asserted. See CRC 2.112; see also Craig v. City of Los Angeles (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 71, 73. The Court also notes that the narrative pages of the FAC do not have line numbers (CRC 2.108) or even paragraph numbers, making reference to the narrative pages difficult: this same deficiency is presented in Plaintiff’s opposition to the demurrer. The Court will strike the FAC on these grounds and permit Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading that complies with the CRC.

2. Uncertainty
Defendants argue that the FAC is unintelligible and uncertain. Defendants correctly note: “A complaint must allege the ultimate facts necessary to the statement of an actionable claim. It is both improper and insufficient for a plaintiff to simply plead the evidence by which he hopes to prove such ultimate facts.” Careau & Co. v. Security Pac. Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1390 (original emphasis); see also Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 867 n.1 (“A pleading is no place to quote, paraphrase, or even allude to the testimony of witnesses.”). To the extent Plaintiff simply attaches documents in an attempt to prove Plaintiff’s allegations and arguments, or alleges what people said in detail concerning various issues, this is improper.

Defendants argue that the FAC is unintelligible, disjointed, and incoherent. See Evarts v. Jones (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 109, 111. The Court agrees in part, for the same reasons supporting the procedural defects identified above. However, although inconvenient, annoying, and inconsiderate, the FAC does not substantially impair Defendants’ ability to understand the nature of the FAC such that leave to amend ought to be denied. See Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 n.2. It is the nature of Plaintiff’s factual allegations that determines what causes of action Plaintiff stated or could have stated if given leave to amend. See, e.g., McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 387-88.

Notably, it appears that the FAC is based on alleged harassing conduct by sheriff deputies (FAC p. 1-3), the refusal of Plaintiff’s supervisor to transfer Plaintiff (id. p. 3-5), subsequent transfers in which Plaintiff suffered retaliation (id. p. 5-7), and a dispute as to Plaintiff being required to take a psychological re-evaluation which resulted in a Civil Service hearing and Plaintiff’s suspension/termination (id. p. 8-15). The factual allegations may support civil rights and retaliation claims; they do not constitute such bizarre and delusional allegations such that the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend (see O’Brien v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (D. Ariz. 1995) 927 F.Supp. 382, 384-85).

3. Employment Claims
However, to the extent Plaintiff attempts to dispute the findings of the Civil Service Commission (FAC p. 8-20), Defendants’ RJN establishes that the decision was finalized on 3/12/14 (RJN Exs. A-B). Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies to appeal the decision by writ of mandate which results in Plaintiff’s retaliation claims being barred. See Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70-71; Page v. Los Angeles County Probation Dept. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1141-44; Miller v. City of Los Angles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1379-83.

To the extent Plaintiff asserts that he attempted to file a petition for writ of mandate on 5/30/14 and instead filed the FAC (Opp’n p. 9), the Court notes that this assertion is not alleged in the FAC. Even if alleged, the Court notes that the FAC is not such a petition.

4. Ruling
Therefore, the demurrer is sustained. Because this is the first challenge to the pleadings, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend. Plaintiff is warned that he has had two chances to properly format his complaint and state causes of action. If he fails again in the Second Amended Complaint, the Court may not give him any further chance to amend and may order a judgment of Dismissal.