2013-00152578-CU-PA

Beverly Sardia vs. Netronix Integration Inc

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer

Filed By: Rogan, Kathleen T.

Defendant City of Sacramento’s (“City”) demurrer to the Second Cause of Action in
Plaintiff’s Complaint is ruled upon as follows.

This is an action arising from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleges that the City
negligently trained, supervised, and/or hired the employees who designed,
programmed, maintained, tested, adjusted and inspected the traffic lights. Plaintiff
alleges that as the employer of negligent employees, the City is vicariously liable. She
alleges that as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent conduct, a
vehicle operated by defendant Manuel Aguayo collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Plaintiff alleges two causes of action: (1) motor vehicle, and (2) general negligence.

The City demurs to the second cause of action for general negligence on the grounds
that Plaintiff improperly seeks to hold the City liable under common law theories of negligence.

In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff argues that has alleged that the City is vicariously
liable for its employee’s actions pursuant to Gov’t Code section 815.2(a).

Under Gov’t Code section 815.2, a public entity is vicariously liable for injuries
proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee within the scope of his
employment if the act or omission would have given rise to a cause of action against
that employee. Because all tort causes of action against a public entity are necessarily
based on statute, they must be pleaded with particularity and show every fact essential
to the existence of statutory liability. (See, e.g., Lopez v. Southern Calif. RapidTransit
District (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.)

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s allegations are
insufficient to allege vicariously liability pursuant to Gov’t Code section 815.2 Plaintiff
conclusorily alleges that the City’s employees were negligent, but fails to allege
specific facts as to how the City’s employees were negligent.

The Court grants leave to amend as this is the City’s first challenge to the complaint.

Plaintiff may file and serve a first amended complaint (“FAC”) by no later than April 28,
2014, Response to be filed and served within 10 days thereafter, 15 days if the FAC is
served by mail. (Although not required by any statute or rule of court, Plaintiff is
requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the FAC to facilitate the filing
of the pleading.)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.